V" 


LIBRARY 

OF  THK 

University  of  California. 

GIFT  OK 

Received  \JL.l£%L..        >  l89.i.- 


Accession  No.   fo-fr>^-£. 

=5 


Class  No. 


ET7  5' 


:  /* 


THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES: 


©r,  a  1)uid  of  tf)* 


EVIDENCES,  DOCTRINES,  MORALS,  AND  INSTITUTIONS 


CHRISTIANITY. 


BY    RICHARD    WATSON. 

n 


A  NEW  EDITION, 

WITH   A   COPIOUS   INDEX,   AND   AN   ANALYSIS, 
BY  J.    M'CLINTOCK. 


COMPLETE    IN    TWO    VOLUMES. 
VOLUME    I. 


Ncro-Uork: 
PUBLISHED  BY   CARLTON  &  PHILLIPS, 


200    MULBERRY-STREET. 
1864. 


« 


PREFACE  TO  THE  NEW  EDITION. 


This  edition  of  the  Institutes  contains  the  "Analysis" 
heretofore  published  as  a  separate  volume.  It  is  also 
furnished  with  a  pretty  copious  Index,  the  want  of  which 
has  long  been  felt.  It  is  hoped  that  the  work  will  be  found 
better  adapted,  both  for  students  and  general  readers,  than 
ever  before. 

Had  not  the  work  been  stereotyped,  the  undersigned 
would  have  gladly  revised  the  body  of  the  book,  especially 
so  far  as  to  present  the  Greek  quotations  in  a  more  correct 
and  sightly  form. 


J.  M'Clintock. 


New- York,  May  6,  1850. 


737881 


ADVERTISEMENT  TO  THE  LONDON  EDITION. 


The  object  of  this  work  is  to  exhibit  the  Evidences,  Doc- 
trines, Morals,  and  Institutions  of  Christianity,  in  a  form 
adapted  to  the  use  of  young  Ministers,  and  Students  in 
Divinity.  It  is  hoped  also  that  it  may  supply  the  deside- 
ratum of  a  Body  of  Divinity,  adapted  to  the  present  state 
of  theological  literature,  neither  Calvinistic  on  the  one  hand, 
nor  Pelagian  on  the  other. 

The  reader  will  perceive  that  the  object  has  been  to  follow 
a  course  of  plain  and  close  argument  on  the  various  subjects 
discussed,  without  any  attempt  at  embellishment  of  style, 
and  without  adding  practical  uses  and  reflections,  which, 
however  important,  did  not  fall  within  the  plan  of  this 
publication.  The  various  controversies  on  fundamental  and 
important  points,  have  been  introduced;  but  it  has  been 
the  sincere  aim  of  the  Author  to  discuss  every  subject  with 
fairness  and  candour:  and  honestly,  but  in  the  spirit  of 
"  the  truth,"  which  he  more  anxiously  wishes  to  be  taught 
than  to  teach,  to  exhibit  what  he  believes  to  be  the  sense 
of  the  Holy  Scriptures,  to  whose  authority,  he  trusts,  he 
has  unreservedly  subjected  all  his  own  opinions. 

London,  March  26,  1823. 


/ 


CONTENTS  OF  VOLUME  I. 


PART  I.— EVIDENCES  OF  CHRISTIANITY. 
I.  Presumptive  Evidence. 

Analysis.  Institutes 

A.  That  a  direct  Revelation  would  be  made  in 

some  way iii.         5 

B.  That  a  direct  Revelation  would  be  made  in 

the  Manner  in  wnicn  Christianity  professes 

TO  HAVE   BEEN    REVEALED V.  62 

II.  .Direct  Evidence. 

Preliminaries vi.        70 

I.  External  Evidence. 

1.  As  to  the  Books  of  the  Revelation 

A.  Antiquity  of  the  Scriptures vii.      107 

B.  UXCORRUPTED    PRESERVATION     OF     THE     SCRIP- 

TURES           vii.      134 

2.  As  to  the  Substance  of  the  Revelation 

A.  The  Argument  from  Miracles viii.      146 

B.  The  Argument  from  Prophecy x.      1 75 

II.  Internal  Evidence. 

A.  Doctrines  of  the  Scriptures xi.     204 

B.  Morals  of  the  Scriptures xii.     -22~> 

C.  Style  of  the  Scriptures xii.     230 

III.  Collateral  Evidence xii.     232 

IV.  Miscellaneous  Objections  answered xii.      236 

PART  II.— DOCTRINES  OF  CHRISTIANITY. 
I.  Doctrines  relating  to  God. 

A.  Existence  of  God xiv.      263 

B.  Attributes  of  God xvii.     336 

C.  Persons  of  the  Godhead — 

(i.)  Trinity xxiii.  447 

(ii.)  Divinity  of  Christ. xxv.  476 

(in.)  Person  of  Christ xxxii.  616 

(iv.)  Personality  and  Deity  of  the  Holy  Ghost  .  xxxiv.  628 


CONTENTS  OF  VOLUME   II. 


II.  Doctrines  relating  to  Man. 

AnflJysU.  Institute!. 

A.  Original  Sin. 

I.  The  Primitive  Condition  of  Man xxxv.  3 

II.  The  Fall  of  Man xxxvi.  19 

III.  Results  of  the  Fall  of  Man xxxviii.  43 

B.  Redemption. 

I.  Principles  of  Redemption  xl.  87 

II.  Benefits  of  Redemption xlix.  207 

III.  Extent  of  Redemption lv.  284 

IV.  Further  benefits  of  Redemption lxx.  450 

PART  III.— MORALS  OF  CHRISTIANITY. 

I.  The  Moral  Law lxxii.  4G8 

U.  Duties  to  God Ixxiv.  480 

III.  Duties  to  our  Neighbour lxxviii.  524 

PART  IV.— INSTITUTIONS  OF  CHRISTIANITY. 

I.  -The  Christian  Church ■ lxxxiii.  572 

H.  The  Sacraments. 

i.  Number  and  Nature  of  the  Sacraments  .  Ixxxv.  606 

ii.  Sacrament  of  Baptism lxxxvi.  615 

in.  Sacrament  of  the  Lord's  Supper xc.  66u 

Index  of  Texts . .". 672 

General  Index 676 


HSITY  . 


ANALYSIS 

OF 

WATSON'S  THEOLOGICAL   INSTITUTES. 


GENERAL  DIVISION. 

PART                                                                                                   Analysis.  Institutes. 

I.  EVIDENCES   OF   CHRISTIANITY  .    .    .  ii.  vol.  i.      5 

II.  DOCTRINES   OF   CHRISTIANITY  .    .    xiv.  «    i.  263 

III.  MORALS   OF   CHRISTIANITY     .    .     .  lxxii.  "  ii.  468 

IV.  INSTITUTIONS  OF  CHRISTIANITY  lxxxiii.  ■  ii.  572 


PART    FIRST. 

EVIDENCES  OF  THE  DIVINE  AUTHORITY  OF  THE 
HOLY  SCRIPTURES. 


OUTLINE. 

I.  Presumptive  evidence. 

A.  That  a  direct  revelation  would  be  made  in  some  way.  (Pp.  1-62.) 

B.  That  it  would  be  made  in  this  way,  i.  e.,  in  the  manner  in  which  Chris- 

tianity professes  to  have  been  revealed.  (Pp.  62-70.) 

II.  Direct  evidence,  preliminary  to  the  introduction  of  which  are  considered 

(1.)  The  kind  and  degree  of  evidence  necessary  to  authenticate  a  reve- 
lation. (Pp.  70-95.) 
(2.)  The  use  and  limitation  of  reason  in  religion;  (pp.  95-105;)  after 
which  the  positive  evidences  are  introduced  under  the  following 
heads : — viz. 
(I.)  External  Evidence. 

I.  Preliminaries. 

(A.)  Antiquity  of  the  Scriptures.  (Pp.  105-133.) 

(B.)  Uncorrupted  preservation  of  the  books  of  Scripture.  (Pp.  134- 

141.) 
(C.)  Credibility  of  the  testimony  of  the  sacred  writers ;  (pp.  141-146 ;) 

w,hich  being  established,  of  course  proves  the  genuineness  and 

authenticity  of  the  books  of  Scripture. 

II.  Argument. 

(A.)  From  miracles. 
Real  miracles  were  wrought.  (Pp.  146-156.) 
Objections  to  the  proof  from  miracles  answered.  (Pp.  156-175.) 
(B.)  From  prophecy. 
Real  predictions  were  delivered.  (Pp.  175-193.) 
Objections  to  the  proof  from  prophecy  answered.  (Pp.  194-204.) 
(II.)  Internal  Evidence. 

(A.)  The  excellence  and  beneficial  tendency  of  the  doctrines  of  Scrip- 
ture. (Pp.  205-225.) 
(B.)  Moral  tendency  of  the  Scriptures.  (Pp.  225-230.) 
(C.)  Style  and  manner  of  the  sacred  writers.  (Pp.  220,  231,  232.) 
(IE.)  Collateral  Evidence.  (Pp.  232-236.)     And  finally 
(IV.)  Miscellaneous  objections  are  answered.  (Pp.  236-262.) 


ANALYSIS  OF  WATSON'S  INSTITUTES. 


PRESUMPTIVE  EVIDENCE. 


A.  Presumptive  evidence  that  a  direct  revelation  would  be  made  in  some  way. 

I.  (Chap,  i.)  Man  a  moral  agent. 

a.)  Man  has  always  been  considered  capable  of  performing  moral  actions; 

which  are — voluntary  actions,  having  respect  to  some  rule. 
b.)  Antecedent  to  human  laws,  there  must  have  been  a  perception  of  the 
difference  of  moral  actions,  because  many  actions  would  be  judged 
good  or  evil,  were  all  civil  codes  abolished. 
c.)  This  perception  may  be  traced,  in  part,  to  experience  and  obser- 
vation of  the  injurious  tendency  of  vice,  and  the  beneficial  results 
of  virtue  ; — but 
d.)  It  cannot  be  so  traced  entirely.     There  has  been,  among  all  men,  a 
constant  reference  to  the  will  of  God,  or  of  supposed  deities,  as  a 
rule  to  determine  the  good  or  evil  of  the  conduct  of  men. 

We  derive  from  these  considerations  two  weighty  presumptions : 
supposing  the  Theist  to  grant  the  existence  of  a  Supreme  Creator, 
of  infinite  power,  wisdom,  &c. : — 
First,  (from  a,  b,  and  c,)  That  those  actions  which  men  consider  good, 

have  the  implied  sanction  of  the  will  of  the  Creator. 
Second,  That  they  were  originally,  in  some  way,  enjoined  as  his  law,  and 
their  contraries  prohibited. 

II.  (Chap.  2.)  The  rule  which  determines  the  quality  op  moral 

actions  must   be  presumed  to  be  matter  of  revelation 

i'kom  God. 
a.)  Creation  implies  government — and  government  implies  Zaic— which 
must  be  revealed: — and  a  revelation  of  divine  will  maybe  made 
either,  (1.)  By  significant  actions,  or  (2.)  P>y  direct  communication 
in  language.  The  Theist  admits  that  (1)  has  been  done.  The  Chris- 
tian admits  (1)  and  (2)  both:  declaring  (1)  to  be  insufficient,  and 
the  question  is,  On  which  side  is  the  presumption  of  truth  ? 
b.)  We  assert  that  natural  indications  are  insufficient  for  the  formation 
of  a  virtuous  character,  and  illustrate  the  deficiency  by  reference 
to  temperance — justice — benevolence — worship — prayer — a  future 
state,  and  the  pardon  of  sin. 

III.  (Chaps.  3,  4,5.)  A  is  proved  by  the  weakness  of  human  reason 

AND  THE  WANT  OF  AUTHORITY  IN  HUMAN  OPINIONS.    (Pp.  15-44.) 

a.)  Granting  that  a  perfect  reason  could  determine  the  moral  quality  of 
actions, — Yet  (1.)  That  perfect  reason  is  not  to  be  found ;  (2.)  Men 
differ  greatly  in  their  reasoning  powers ;  (3.)  Men  are  not  sufficiently 
contemplative,  nor  sufficiently  honest,  for  such  inquiries ;  (4.)  We 
find  that  men  bring  down  the  rule  to  the  practice,  rather  than  raise 
the  practice  to  the  ride. 

b.)  But  supposing  truth  discovered,  and  intellectual  men  appointed  to 
teach  others,  what  authority  have  they  ? 


iv  ANALYSIS  OF  WATSON'S  INSTITUTES. 

1 .  We  answer  a  priori,  no  other  authority  than  the  opinion  of  a  teacher, 

which  might  be  received  or  not. 

2.  And  facts  are  sufficiently  in  proof  of  this. — Cicero,  &c. 

c.)  (Chap.  4.)  But  reason,  alone,  cannot  determine  the  moral  quality  of 
actions.     (1.)  Reason  is  an  erring  faculty,  and  its  exercise  is  limited 
by  our  knowledge.     (2.)  It  is  one  thing  to  assent  to  a  doctrine  when 
discovered  and  proposed,  and  another  to  make  such  discovery  origin- 
ally.    (3.)  The  principles  of  (what  is  called)  natural  religion  com- 
mand the  assent  of  reason,  but  the  question  is,  Whence  came  they  f 
(4.)  Certainly  they  were  never  mentioned  as  discoveries,  either  by 
the  sacred  writers,  or  sages  of  antiquity. 
d.)  In  fact,  sober  views  of  great  religious  truths  have  been  found  nowhere, 
since  patriarchal  times,  save  in  the  sacred  writings : — thus, 
(1.)  Existence  of  God.     Ancient  doubts.    Modern  Budhists. 
(2.)  Creation  of  matter.    Eternity  of  matter  was  the  doctrine  of  the 

Ionic,  Platonic,  Italic,  and  Stoic  schools.     Aristotle. 
(3.)  Individuality  of  the  human  soul. 
(4.)  Doctrine  of  Providence.     Ancients  believed  in  conflicting  and 

subordinate  gods. 
(5.)  Immortality  of  the  human  soul.     Ancient  doctrine  of  absorption. 
Modern  Hindoo  notion  of  annihilation. 
e.)  (Chap.  5.*)  Those  truths  which  are  found  in  the  writings  and  religious 
systems  of  the  heathen  can  be  traced  to  revelation. 
(1.)  There  was  a  substratum  of  common  opinions  among  all  early  na- 
tions, in  regard  to  facts  and  doctrines  which  are  contained  in  the 
Old  Testament : — thus,  golden   age,   sacrifice,  formation   of  the 
world,  &c.  (P.  27.) 
(2.)  (Pp.  27,  28,  &c.)  Adam,  a  moral  agent,  must. have  had  instruction 
from  the   Creator,   and  his  knowledge  might   easily  have   been 
transmitted  to  Noah's  time,  for  Methuselah  was  contemporary  with 
both  Adam  and  Noah.     Then  after  the  flood,  the  system  would  of 
course  be  propagated  by  Noah's  descendants,  and  we  find  it  re- 
ceived in  the  family  of  Abraham.     Subsequently  it  was  doubtless 
vastly  diffused  by  the  dispersions  and  restorations  of  the  children 
of  Israel.     Nine  conclusions.  (P.  33.) 
IV.  A  is  proved  by  the  necessity  of  revelation, — evinced, 

a.)  By  the  state  of  religious  knowledge  among  the  heathen,  (chap,  vi,) 
with  regard  to  theirs/  principles  of  religion  :  viz. 

1.  God.    The   notion   of  subordinate   deities    obtained    equally  with 

that  of  one  supreme  God.  The  eternity  of  matter  and  its 
perversity,  not  to  be  controlled  even  by  God,  were  favourite 
opinions. 

2.  Providence.  If  admitted  at  all,  the  doctrine  was  vitiated  and  coun- 

teracted  by  other  opinions.     The  Epicureans  denied  it ;  Plato 

•  The  notes  to  this  chapter  are  very  valuable,  and  should  be  studied  carefully,  in  con- 
nexion with  the  text. 


ANALYSIS   OF  WATSON'S  INSTITUTES.  v 

joined  fortune  with  God ;  and  Polytheism  gave  up  the  world  to 
opposing  and  conflicting  powers. 
3.  Future  state.  Oriental  doctrines  of  transmigration  and  absorption. 
Periodical  destruction  and  renovation.  Aristotle,  Democritus, 
Heraclitus,  and  Epicurus  either  denied  or  refused  to  countenanco 
the  doctrine  of  the  soul's  existence  after  death.  Cicero  doubted  ; 
Pliny  and  Cesar  denied  it ;  Seneca  wavered, 
b.)  By  the  state  of  morals  among  the  heathen.  (Chap,  vii.) 

1.  Their  moral  and  religious  systems  were  doubtless  from  a  common 

source. 

2.  But  the  rides  had  become  involved  in  obscurity,  their  injunctions 

lacked  authority,  and  the  general  practices  of  men  had  become 
vicious.     The  subject  is  illustrated  by  adverting  to  certain  pre- 
cepts of  the  second  table,  and  showing  that,  although  heathen 
nations  have  been  sensible  of  the  obligation  of  these,  among 
all  of  them  the  rule  has  been  perverted  in  theory  and  violated 
in  practice. 
(1.)  Murder  and  suicide.    Disregard  of  life  among  heathen.    Gladia- 
torial combats.     Treatment  of  slaves  and  children. 
(2.)  Hatred  and  revenge.     Cicero.     Aristotle. 

(3.)  Adultery,  divorce,  fornication,  &c.     Laws  in  regard  to  these, 
though  acknowledged,  yet  grossly  violated  among  heathen 
nations,  even  down  to  crimes  Trupa  ovaiv. 
(4.)   Theft  and  rapine.     Honesty  almost  unknown  among  heathen. 
(5.)  Lying.    Menander.     Plato.     India.      t 
c.)  By  the  fact,  that  their  religions  themselves  were  destructive  of  morality. 
(Chap,  viii.) 

1.  Their  gloomy  superstitions  fostered  ferocity  and  cruelty.     Human 

sacrifices  among  ancients,  and  also  in  modern  Africa,  Asia,  and 
America- 

2.  Their  religions  were  as  productive  of  impurity  as  of  bloodshed. 

Roman  Floralia.    Mysteries.    Indian  temple  worship. 
B.  Presumptive  evidence  that  a  direct  revelation  ivould  be  made  in  this  way  : 
i.  e.,  in  tlte  manner  in  tchich  Christianity  professes  to  have  been  revealed. 
(Pp.  62-70.) 
a.)  A  supernatural  manifestation  of  truth  should, 

1.  Contain  explicit  information  on  those  subjects  which  are  most  important 

to  man ; 

2.  Accord  with  the  principles  of  former  revelations ; 
8.  Have  a  satisfactory  external  authentication  ; 

4.  Contain  provisions  for  its  effectual  promulgation ; 
b.)  All  these  conditions  are  fulfilled  in  the  Scriptures. 

1.  They  give  information  as  to  God,  man,  a  Mediator,  Providence, 

FUTURE  STATE,  &C. 

2.  Three  distinct  religious  systems,  the  Patriarchal,  Mosaic,  and  Christian, 

harmonize  in  their  doctrines  and  objects. 


VI  ANALYSIS  OF  AVATSON'S  INSTITUTES. 

3.  The  Mosaic  and  Christian  revelations  profess  to  rest  on  external  evi- 

dence. 

4.  Provision  made  (1.)  By  writing.     (2.)  By  commemorative  rites,  &c 

(3.)  By  accredited  teachers. 


II.  DIRECT  EVIDENCE. 

Two  preliminaries. 
(I.)  (Chap,  ix.)   The  evidences  necessary  to  authenticate  a  revelation.  (P.  70.) 

1.  External,  principal  and  most  appropriate:  if  not  to  the  immediate 

recipient,  at  least  to  those  to  whom  he  communicates  it.     There  are 
two  branches  of  the  external  proof,  Miracles  and  Prophecy. 
(a.)  Miracles. 

1.  Definition.     1.)  Popular.     2.)  Philosophic.     3.)  Theological. 

2.  Possibility  of  miracles.  (Pp.  74,  75.) 

3.  Distinction  between  real  miracles  and  prodigies.     Criteria.  (P.  76.) 

4.  Necessity  of  connexion  between  even  such  real  miracles,  the  mes- 

senger, and  his  message.  (P.  78.) 

5.  Human  testimony  sufficient  to  establish  the  credibility  of  miracles.    (Pp. 

78,  79.) 
(1.)  Hume's  objection. 
(2.)  Replies  to  it  by  Paley — Llandaff— Campbell. 

6.  Fitness  of  the  evidence  of  miracles  as  a  ground  of  universal  belief. 

(P.  85.) 
(b.)  Prophecy. 

1.  Possibility  not  to  be  denied.     Dilemma. 

2.  Adequateness  as  a  proof. 

2.  Internal. 

(a.)  Nature  of  the  evidence. 

(b.)  Its  rank  in  the  scale  of  evidence. 

1.  Not  necessary:  sufficient  proof  without  it:  but  nevertheless  useful. 

2.  Not  primary,  but  confirmatory.     The   contrary  opinion  not  only 

supposes  us  capable  of  judging  fully  of  the  doctrines  revealed,  but 
also  renders  the  external  testimony  comparatively  nugatory.  Two 
sources  of  this  error. 

(1.)  The  notion  that  miracles  might  be  wrought  to  attest  unworthy 
doctrines. 

(2.)  A  confounding  of  the  rational  with  the  authenticating  evidence. 

3.  Not  so  well  adapted  to  the  mass  of  mankind  as  external  evidence, 

3.  Collateral.    Nature  of  the  evidence  stated.  (P.  94.) 
(n.)  (Chap,  xi.)   The  use  and  limitation  of  reason  in  religion. 

(a.)  Use  of  reason  in  regard  to  revelation. 

1.  To  investigate  the  evidences  of  its  divine  authority. 

2.  To  interpret  the  meaning  of  the  record. 


EXTERNAL  EVIDENCE.  k  VM 

(b.)  Limitation. 

1.  It  must  not  decide  in  cases  where  the  nature  of  things  is  not  known, 

either  by  or  without  revelation. 

2.  The  things  compared  must  be  of  the  same  nature,  and  the  comparison 

must  be  made  in  the  same  respects. 
These  preliminaries  being  settled,  we  now  proceed  to  adduce  positive  evi- 
dences, of  which  there  are  three  heads,  viz. : — 

I.  EXTERNAL  EVIDENCE. 

(I.)  Preliminaries. 
(A.)  (Chap,  xii.)  Antiquity  op  the  Scriptures. 
a.)  (P.  107.)  The  persons  who  were  the  immediate  instruments  of  these 
revelations,  existed  at  the  periods  assigned.    Proved, 
(1.)  By  the  very  existence  of  1.)  The  Jewish  polity;  and  2.)  The 

Christian  religion. 
(2.)  By  the  testimony  of  ancient  authors. 

1.  As  to  Moses.    Manetho,  Apollonius,  Strabo,  Justin,  Pliny,  Tacitus, 

Juvenal,  Longinus,  Diod.  Siculus,  &c. 

2.  As  to  Christ.     Suetonius,  Tacitus. 

b.)  (P.  109.)  The  books  which  contain  the  doctrines  are  of  Vie  date  as- 
signed to  them.     Proved, 
(1.)  As  to  Old  Testament. 

1.  By  the  language  in  which  it  is  written. 

2.  By  Josephus'  Catalogue. 

3.  By  the  Septuagint,  and  by  Samaritan  Pentateuch. 

4.  By  Leslie's  Argument,  which  gives  four  rules  for  determining 

the  truth  of  matters  of  fact,  all  which  are  applied  with  success 
to  the  Old  Testament,  viz. : 
(1.)  The  matter  of  fact  must  be  cognizable  by  the  senses. 
(2.)  The  matter  of  fact  must  be  publicly  done. 
(3.)  The  matter  of  fact  must  be  commemorated  by  monuments  and 

outward  actions, 
(4.)  Which  must  date  from  the  time  of  the  matters  of  fact. 
(2.)  As  to  New  Testament. 

1.  By  Leslie's  Argument,  as  before. 

2.  By  internal  evidence  from  the  narration  itself. 

3.  Testimony  of  adversaries.     Celsus,  Porphyry,  Hiebocles, 

Julian. 

4.  Quotations  by  subsequent  authors,  from  the  apostles  downward. 

(P.  126.) 
(B.)  (Chap,  xiii.)   Uncorrupted  preservation  of  the  books  of 
Scripture.  (P.  134.) 
a.)  The  books  are  substantially  the  same  as  when  written.    Proved, 
(1.)  As  to  Old  Testament.     By  the  list  of  Josephus,  Septuagint,  and 
Samaritan  Pentateuch. 


viii  ANALYSIS  OF  WATSON'S  INSTITUTES. 

(2.)  As  to  New  Testament.    By  the  Catalogues  of  Origen,  Athanasius, 
Cyril,  &c,  from  A.  D.  230,  downward, 
b.)  But  it  can  be  shown  also,  that  they  have  descended  to  us  without  any 
material  alteration  whatever. 
(1.)  As  to  Old  Testament. 

1.  Before  the  time  of  Christ,  they  were  secured  from  alteration  by 

their  being  generally  known, — by  the  jealousy  of  the  Samaritans, 
— by  the  public  reading  on  Sabbath, — by  Chaldee  Paraphrase, 
and  the  Greek  version. 

2.  After  the  birth  of  Christ,  by  mutual  jealousy  of  Jews  and  Chris- 

tians, and  the  general  diffusion  of  the  books. 
8.  All  this  is  confirmed  by  the  agreement  of  the  manuscripts  in  all 
important  respects.  (P.  138.) 
(2.)  As  to  New  Testament. 

1.  From  their  contents.     Same  facts  and  doctrines. 

2.  Impossibility  of  corruption  because  of  general  knowledge  of  the 

books,  and  mutual  restraints  of  orthodox  and  heretics,  Eastern 
and  Western  churches. 

3.  From  the  agreement  of  the  manuscripts. 

4.  From  the  agreement  of  ancient  versions  and  quotations. 

(C.)  (Chap,  xiv.)  Credibility  of  the  testimony,  of  the  sacred 

WRITERS. 

(1.)  That  they  were  persons  of  virtuous  and  sober  character  was  never 

denied. 
(2.)  They  were  in  circumstances  to  know  the  truth  of  what  they  relate. 

They  could  not  be  deceived,  for  instance,  as  to  the  feeding  of  the 

four  thousand,  gift  of  tongues,  &c. 
(3.)  They  had  no  interest  in  making  good  the  story.     Their  interests  all 

lay  in  the  opposite  direction. 
(4.)  Their  account  is  circumstantial,  and  given  in  a  learned  age,  when  its 

falsity  might  easily  have  been  detected. 


(II.)  After  these  preliminaries,  establishing  the  genuineness  and  authenticity  of 
the  books,  it  remains  now  to  present  the  argument. 
(A.)  From  miracles.  (P.  146.) 
(1.)  (Chap,  xv.)   Their  reality  proved. 
(a.)  Definition  of  a  true  miracle. 

(b.)    Claims    of   Scriptural  miracles  to  be    considered   true,  illus- 
trated— 

1.  As  to  those  of  Moses.    Darkness,  destruction  of  first-born,  passage 

of  Red  Sea,  falling  of  manna. 

2.  As  to  those  of  Christ.    Illustrated  especially  by  the  greatest 

miracle,  the  resurrection,  in  regard  to  which  it  is  shown, 
a.  That  Christ  was  really  dead. 


EXTERNAL  EVIDENCE.  k 

b.  That  the  body  was  missing.     That 

c.  Every  attempt  to  account  for  (b,)  except  on  the  supposition  of 

a  resurrection,  is  absurd,  and 

d.  That  the  story  was  confirmed  by  the  subsequent  testimony  and 

conduct  of  the  disciples. 
(2.)  (Chap,  xvi.)   Objections  answered. 

(a.)  It  is  asserted  that  miracles  have  been  wrought  in  support  of  other- 
doctrines. 
I.  On  the  authority  of  Scripture.     For,  it  is  said, 

(1.)  That  Scripture  gives  instances  of  such:  e.  g.,  of  magicians  in 
opposition  to  Moses,  and  the  raising  of  Samuel  by  the  witch 
of  Endor,  etc.    In  reply  to  this, 

1.  As  to  the  feats  of  the  magicians,  it  is  to  be  noticed,  1.  That 

they  were  professed  wonder-workers  ;  2.  That  they  could 
imitate  but  three  of  Moses'  miracles ;  3.  That  their  works 
'  were  wrought  to  maintain  the  equality  of  their  idols  with 
Jehovah.     Two  explanations  are  given. 

1.  Some  suppose  these  were  exercises  of  legerdemain. 

2.  Our  author  admits  a  supernatural  evil  agency :  which  is 

not  unreasonable,  inasmuch  as  the  design  was,  not  to 
disprove  the  divinity  of  Jehovah,  but  to  maintain  their 
own  authority. 

2.  As  to  the  witch  of  Endor,  and  Satan's  bearing  our  Lord 

through  the  air: — Granting  these   events  to   have  been 
miraculous,  it  cannot  be  shown  that  they  were  wrought  in 
opposition  to  a  divine  mission. 
(2.)  That  Scripture  assumes  the  possibility  of  such.     Deut.  xiii,  1  j 
Matt,  xxiv,  24 ;  2  Thess.  ii,  8,  9.     As  to  this, 

1.  Notice  the  nature  and  work  of  Satan. — Six  points.       ^'  ' 

2.  Observe  the  limitations  of  the  power  of  evil  spirits,  four  points  : 

(1.)  No  work  of  creation.  (2.)  No  power  of  life  and 
death.  (3.)  No  knowledge  of  future  events.  (4.)  No 
certain  knowledge  of  the  thoughts  of  men. 

3.  Apply  these  considerations  to  show 

(1.)  That  no  real  miracle  can  be  performed  in  opposition  to 
the  truth.     Illustrated, 
(1.)  By  the  case  of  the  Egyptian  magi. 
(2.)  By  that  of  false  Christs,  &c. 
(2.)  Nor  any  prophecy  be  uttered  implying  certain  knowledge 
of  future  events :  though  great  sagacity  may  be  exhibited. 
N.  B.  No  evidence  recorded  in  favour  of  falsehood  that  might 
not  readily  be  refuted  on  the  spot  by  counter  evidence. 
II.  On  the  authority  of  profane  writers.  (P.  168.)  Miracles  of  Aris- 
teas,  Pythagoras,  Alexander,  Vespasian,  Apollonius  Tyanaeus, 
and  the  Romish  Church.     To  this  we  reply, 
(a.)   These  pretended  miracles  are  all  deficient  in  evidence. 
Vol.  I.— B. 


ANALYSIS   OP  WATSON'S  INSTITUTES. 

(b.)  They  are  insulated  and  destitute  of  any  reasonable  object : 
while  the  miracles  of  Scripture  combine  for  the  establishment 
of  one  system. 

(B.)  From  prophecy.  (P.  175.) 

(1.)  (Chap,  xvii.)   Their  reality  proved. 
(a.)  Preliminary  considerations. 

1.  The  instances  are  numerous. 

2.  Many  have  clearly  come  to  pass. 

3.  They  all  tend  to  one  great  end. 

4.  This  last  characteristic  is  peculiar  to  the  Scripture  prophecies. 

5.  There  is  no  obscurity  in  them  that  can  be  a  just  ground  for 

cavil. 

6.  The  double  sense  of  prophecy,  so  far  from  being  an  objection,  is  a 

confirmation  of  the  infinite  wisdom  that  inspired  it. 
(b.)  Examples  of  such  predictions.  (P.  181,  et  seq.) 

1.  The  prediction  to  Adam  of  the  protracted  conflict  between  the  serpent 

and  the  seed  of  the  woman,  with  the  ultimate  triumph  of  the 
latter. 

2.  Jacob's  prediction  respecting  the  time  ivhen  Shiloh  should  come. 

3.  Predictions  respecting  the  Jewish  nation,  viz. : — (1.)  Their  apos- 

tacies.     (2.)  Their  punishments.     (3.)  Their  restoration. 

4.  Predictions  respecting  the  Messiah. 

(1.)  Upward  of  one  hundred  distinct  predictions  as  to  his  birth, 

life,  sufferings,  death,  and  resurrection. 
(2.)  Wonderful  prophecy,  especially,  contained  in  Isaiah  liii. 
(2.)  (Chap,  xviii.)   Objections  answered. 

(a.)  It  is  objected  to  some  of  the  prophecies,  that  they  were  written  after 
the  event. 
This  cannot  be  sustained :  illustrated  as  to  Isaiah  and  Daniel. 
(b.)  The  Scripture  prophecies  are  compared  to  the  heathen  oracles. 
Let  us  take  the  Delphic  oracle  for  an  example.     Of  this  we  say, 

1.  None  of  its  predictions  ever  went  deep  into  futurity. 

2.  Its  responses  were  ambiguous. 

3.  Venal  and  servile,  it  was  easily  corrupted.    None  of  which  can 

be  alleged  of  Scripture  prophecies, 
(c.)  The  character  of  the  prophets  is  aspersed. 
E.  g.,  Balaam,  and  Jewish  false  prophets.     Singular  proceeding  to 
condemn  the  true  on  account  of  the  false,  who  were  not  received 
by  the  Jews  themselves, 
(d.)  It  it  asserted  that  some  of  the  prophecies  have  failed. 

1.  Promise  to  Abraham.     Ans.  But  this  was  fulfilled  in  the  time  of 

David  and  Solomon. 

2.  Promise  of  great  wealth  and  dominion  to  the  Jews.     ( Voltaire.) 

Ans.   Civil  blessings  promised  conditionally,  and  spiritual  bless- 
ings generally  predicted  under  figures  of  speech. 


INTERNAL  EVIDENCE.  xi 

3.  Prediction  of  Isaiah  to  Ahaz.     Ans.  This  was  fulfilled. 

4.  Prophecy  of  Jeremiah  to  Zedekiah.     Ans.  This  was  fulfilled  in 

all  particulars,  as  far  as  we  know. 

5.  That  of  Ezekiel  respecting  the  desolation  of  Egypt.  Ans.  We  know 

not  that  it  has  not  been  fulfilled  :   and  the  very  same  prophecy 
contains  a  prediction  that   has  been  remarkably  accomplish- 
ed. (P.  202.) 
(e.)  Sundry  actions  of  the  prophets  have  been  ridiculed.    Ans.  They 
were  appropriate  to  the  occasions,  and  in  accordance  with  primi- 
tive and  oriental  usage. 


IL  INTERNAL  EVIDENCE. 

Notice  two  preliminaries. 
(1.)  The  distinction  between  rational  and  authenticating  evidence. 
(2.)  Those  doctrines  which  have  no  rational  evidence  do  not  suffer  in  au- 
thority on  that  account. 

"We  have  now  to  consider, 
(A.)  The  excellence  and  beneficial  tendency  of  the  doctrines 
of  Scripture.    (P.  204.)     Among  which  are 
a.)  The  existence  of  God — his  character,  attributes,  &c. 
b.)  The  moral  condition  of  man:  vis. 

1.  The  race  is  absolutely  vicious. 

2.  And  vicious  in  consequence  of  a  moral  taint  in  their  nature :  for  the 

evil  is  not  to  be  accounted  for  by  the  influence  of  education  or  ex- 
ample, as  some  vainly  say. 

3.  The  divine  government,  in  regard  to  man,  is  of  a  mixed  character. 

c.)  The  atonement.     Doctrine  much  objected  to,  as  being  deficient  in  ra- 
tional evidence.     The  Christian  doctrine  of  atonement  is  grounded  on 

1.  Future  punishment,  which  is 

2.  Unlimited  :  for  which  two  arguments  may  be  assigned.     (1.)  Present 

analogies.     (2.)  Doctrine  of  immortality. 

3.  The  problem  of  the  possibility  of  pardon,  without  such  a  relaxation  of 

the  divine  government  as  would  effectually  nullify  it,  can  only  be 
solved  by  this  great  doctrine.     Repentance  and  reformation  are  not 
only  unavailing,  but  would,  from  the  nature  of  the  case,  be  imprac- 
ticable.    Illustration,  Zaleucus. 
d.)  Doctrine  of  the  influence  of  the  Holy  Spirit. 

1.  No  physical  objection  to  this  doctrine. 

2.  No  moral  objection.     Free  agency  not  destroyed. 

3.  It  is  adapted  to  the  moral  destitution  of  man. 

4.  It  presents  an  affecting  view  of  the  divine  character. 

5.  It  elevates  our  aspirations,  and  encourages  us  to  the  performance  of  the 

most  difficult  duties. 
This  branch  of  the  internal  evidence  may  be  properly  closed  by  noticing 


Xii  ANALYSIS   OF  WATSON'S  INSTITUTES. 

e.)  The  wonderful  agreement  in  doctrine  among  the  writers,  though  numer- 
ous, and  writing  at  different  periods. 

(B.)  Moral  tendency  of  the  Scriptures.  (Pp.  225-30.) 
a.)  It  has  been  asserted  that  the  Bible  has  an  immoral  tendency,  because  it 
records  the  failings  of  some  of  its  leading  characters !     Answered : — 
These  frailties  are  always  recorded  for  admonition ;   illustrated  by 
David's  case. 
N.  B.  The  moral  characters  of  Blount,  Tyndal,  Hobbes,  Voltaire,  &c, 
not  very  honourable  to  the  cause  which  they  espouse, 
b.)   Compare  pagan  morality  with  that  of  the  Scriptures. 

1.  Great  moral  qualities  attributed  to  the  divine  Being  were  abstract  with 

them ;  but  in  Christ  they  are  all  exemplified. 

2.  No  authority  for  moral  rules  among  Pagans. 

3.  Their  apprehension  of  moral  principles  was  indistinct. 

4.  The  same  writers  among  heathen  are  of  a  lower  grade  than  among 

Christians.  (P.  229.) 

5.  Beauty  and  symmetry  of  the  Christian  morals.     "Wesley.     Taylor. 
(C.)  Style  and  manner  op  the  sacred  writers.  (P.  230.) 

a.)  Style,  various,  as  it  should  be,  being  the  productions  of  different  indi- 
viduals, in  different  ages.     Marsh.     Michaelis. 
b.)  Manner,  artless  and  natural,  possessing  all  the  simplicity  of  truth. 


IIL  COLLATERAL  EVIDENCE. 

(A.)  Marvellous  diffusion  of  Christianity,  especially  during  the  first 
three  centuries,  confirmed  by  Tacitus,  Pliny,  Justin,  Tertullian,  Origen, 
until  A.  D.  300,  when  Christianity  became  the  established  religion  of  the 
Roman  empire.    (P.  232.) 

(B.)  Actual  effect  produced  upon  mankind.  Idolatry.  Immorality 
Infanticide.     Condition  of  woman. 


IV  MISCELLANEOUS  OBJECTIONS  ANSWERED. 

Preliminary  remarks.     (Chap,  xx.)    (P.  236.) 

1.  Objections  are  often  raised  in  great  ignorance  of  the  volume  itself. 

2.  Hasty  theories  have  been  constructed,  which  have  been  found  or  thought 

to  contradict  the  Scriptures ;  thus  Deism  arose  in  the  sixteenth  century 
in  France,  and  in  the  seventeenth  in  England. 

3.  Herbert,  Hobbes,  Shaftesbury,  and  Hume,  the  chief  English  infi- 

dels ;  and  the  great  principle  of  error  with  them  all,  is  that  of  Her- 
bert of  Cherbury,  viz.,  "  the  sufficiency  of  our  natural  faculties  to  form 
a  religion  for  ourselves,  and  to  decide  upon  the  merits  of  revealed  truth." 
Objections  on  moral  grounds. 

1.  The  command  to  the  Israelites  to  exterminate  the  Canaanites. 
Ans.  It  cannot  be  proved  inconsistent  with  the  character  of  God  to  em- 
ploy human  agents,  as  well  as  natural,  in  such  a  work. 


MISCELLANEOUS  OBJECTIONS  ANSWERED.  xiii 

2.  Law  in  Deuteronomy  authorizing  parents  to  accuse  their  children,  &c. 
Ans.  In  fact  this  was  a  merciful  regulation. 

3.  Intentional  offering  of  Isaac  by  Abraham. 

Ans.  (1.)  Abraham  had  no  doubt  of  the  divine  command. 
(2.)  He  obeyed,  in  faith  that  God  would  raise  his  son. 

4.  Indelicacy  and  immodesty  have  been  charged  upon  the  Scriptures. 
Ans.  (1.)  These  sins  are  everywhere  denounced  as  offensive  to  God. 

(2.)  The  passages  alluded  to  are  generally  prohibitions  of  crime. 
(3.)  The  simplicity  of  early  manners  is  to  be  considered. 
Several  others  might  be  adduced,  but  a  little  skill  in  the  languages  and  anti- 
quities of  Scripture  will  always  clear  up  the  main  difficulties. 
II.  Objections  on  philosophical  grounds.  (P.  241.) 

1.  Infidels  are  fond  of  contrasting  (what  they  call)  the  simplicity  of  the  book 

of  nature  with  the  mystery  of  the  book  of  God. 
Ans.  (1.)  Many  doctrines  and  duties  are  comprehensible. 

(2.)  Facts  may  be  revealed,  and  yet  be  incomprehensible :  e.  g.,  it 

is  revealed  that  God  is  omnipresent,  but  not  how  he  is  so,  &c. 
(3.)  But  even  in  their  boasted  natural  philosophy,  revelation  and 
mystery  go  hand  in  hand.     The  real  causes  of  the  phenomena 
named  gravitation,  cohesion,  evaporation,  &c,  are  unknown ; 
and  even  in  pure  mathematics,  such  incomprehensibles  occur. 

2.  From  the  minuteness  of  the  earth  as  contrasted  with  the  vastness  of  the 

material  universe,  infidelity  argues  the  insignificance  of  man ;  thence 
the  improbability  of  redemption. 
Answered,  (1.)  By  Dr.  Beatty.     (2.)  By  Granville  Penn. 

3.  Objections  are  brought  against  the  Mosaic  chronology  from  two  sources : 
(1.)  The  chronology  of  ancient  nations. 

(2.)  The  structure  of  the  earth. 

As  to  the  (1)  class,  these  ancient  chronologies  are  rapidly  losing  cha- 
racter, especially  the  Hindoo  and  Chinese,  which  make  the  greatest 
pretensions  to  antiquity.     No  reliance  whatever  is  placed  upon 
them. 
As  to  the  (2)  geological  objection,  two  solutions  have  been  offered. 

1.  That  the  days  of  the  Mosaic  history  are  indefinite  periods. 

2.  That  an  indefinite  time  elapsed  between  the  beginning  spoken 

of  in  Genesis  i,  1,  and  the  work  of  the  six  days. 
To  both  these  solutions  our  author  objects,  and  prefers  the  views  of  Mr. 
Granville  Penn. 

4.  It  is  objected  that  light  was  created  on  the  first  day,  and  the  sun  not  until 

the  fourth. 
Several  solutions. 

5.  Objections  to  Mosaic  account  of  the  deluge. 

6.  Objections  as  to  number  of  animals  taken  into  the  ark  with  Noah. 


PART    S  E  C  0  ND. 

DOCTRINES  OF  THE  HOLY  SCRIPTURES 


OUTLINE. 
I  DOCTRINES  RELATING  TO  GOD. 


(A.)  Existence: 

(Ch.  i.) 

(B.)  Attributes: 

(Ch.  ii-vii.) 

(C.)  Persons: 

(I.)      Doctrine  of  Trinity, 

(Ch.  viii,  ix.) 

(DI.)     Divinity  of  Christ, 

(Ch.  x-xv.) 

(M.)  Humanity  of  Christ, 

(Ch.  xvi.) 

(IV.)  Personality  and  Deity  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  (Ch.  xvii.) 

II.  DOCTRINES  RELATING  TO  MAN. 

(A.)  Original  sin :  (Ch.  xviii.) 

(B.)  Redemption : 

(I.)     Principles  of,  (Ch.  xix-xxii.) 

(IT.)  Benefits  of,  (Ch.  xxiii-xxix.) 


I.  DOCTRINES  RELATING  TO  GOD.— (Ch.  i-xvii.) 

(A.)— EXISTENCE  05  GOD.  (Ch.  i.) 

(I.)  Source  of  the  idea. 
I.  From  the  sacred  writings. 

1.  From  the  names  of  God  as  recorded  in  Scripture : 

2.  From  the  actions  which  the  Scriptures  ascribe  to  him : 

3.  From  the  attributes  with  which  they  invest  him. 

n.  From  the  sacred  writings  alone.  (P.  26  7.) 

1.  The  language  of  the  Christian  philosophers,  in  regard  to  the  Deity,  is 

very  different  from  the  inconsistent  and  grovelling  views  of  the  sages 
of  antiquity:  e.  g.,  Barrow,  Pearson,  Lawson,  and  Newton,  are 
quoted. 

2.  The  question  of  man's  ability  to  discover  the  existence  of  a  first  cause, 

cannot  be  determined  by  matter  of  fact. 


EXISTENCE   OF   GOD.  XV 

3.  Nor  can  the  abstract  probability  of  such  discovery  be  sustained.  (P.  271.) 
(1.)  Uneducated  man  is  a  creature  of  appetite: — but  he  cannot  be 
educated  without  civilization  and  society : — these  have  never  ex- 
isted, and  we  may  safely  say,  can  never  exist,  without  a  religious 
basis :  but  by  the  hypothesis,  that  basis,  viz.,  the  idea  of  God,  is 
wanting. 
(2.)  (P.  273.)  Clear  as  the  argument  a  posteriori  now  appears  to  us, 
yet  all  history  shows  that  the  eternity  of  matter  has  been  an  impas- 
sable barrier  in  the  way  of  human  reasoning,  unaided  by  revela- 
tion, in  the  attempt  to  establish  a  divine  existence. 
(3.)  (P.  274.)  The  doctrine  of  innate  ideas  is  exploded. 

(II.)  Proofs.  (Pp.  272-325.) 
I.  Preliminary  observations. 

(a.)  On  the  relation  of  cause  and  effect. 

1.  The  principle  is,  that  nothing  exists   or  comes  to  pass  icithout  an 

EFFICIENT  CAUSE. 

2.  Hume  (probably  following  Hobbes)  objects  to  this  principle  on  the 

ground,  that  what  we  suppose  to  be  necessary  connexions,  in 
nature,  are  or  may  be  only  habitual  sequences,  and  that  we  cannot 
demonstrate  them  to  be  otherwise. 

3.  Answered  by  Dugald  Stewart,  who  admits  Hume's  doctrine  indeed, 

but  nullifies  its  evil  results,  by  his  distinction  between  efficient 
and  physical  causes.     But 

4.  (P.  279.)  Our  author  supposes  the  true  state  of  the  case  to  be 

(1.)  That  there  are  efficient  causes,  and  that  the  relation  between 

them  and  their  effects  is  necessary. 
(2.)  That  there  are  physical  causes,  the  relation  between  which  and 
their  effects  is  necessary  in  this  sense,  viz.,  that  God  has  estab- 
lished a  certain  order  in  nature,  by  which  his  own  efficiency 
exerts  itself.     This  is  a  very  different  notion  from  the  unsatis- 
factory one  of  habitual  sequence. 
(b.)  On  the  distinction  between  argument  a  priori  and  a  posteriori.     Su- 
periority of  the  latter  in  this  case. 

n.  Proof  of  the  existence  of  God. 

*     1.  Locke's  argument    "I  exist:  I  did  not  always  exist :  whatever  begins 
to  exist  must  have  a  cause :  that  cause  must  be  adequate  :  this  ade- 
quate cause  is  unlimited  :  it  must  be  God." 
2.  Howe's  argument.     The  same,  but  more  expanded,  thus : 

(1)  Somewhat  hath  existed  from  eternity:  hence  (2)  must  be  uncaused: 
hence  (3)  independent :  hence  (4)  necessary :  hence  (5)  self-active  : 
and  hence  (6)  originally  vital,  and  the  source  of  all  life. 

HI.  Proof  of  the  intelligence  of  God.  (P.  286.) 

1.  Dr.  Sam.  Clarke's  argument  from  the  intelligence  of  man,  and  the 


XYi  ANALYSIS   OF  WATSON'S  INSTITUTES. 

variety,  order,  excellence,  and  contrivance  of  things :  and  especially 
from  the  existence  of  motion. 

2.  (P.  291.)  This  last  (viz.,  motion)  expanded,  from  Howe's  Living  Temple. 

3.  The  basis  of  natural  theology,  as  found  in  Howe's  Living  Temple, 

— "  Whatever  exists,  with  the  marks  of  wisdom  and  design  upon  it, 
had  a  wise  and  designing  cause."  (P.  293.)     Illustrations, 

(1.)  A  watch  presented  to  an  observer  for  the  first  time. 

(2.)  Much  more,  the  heavenly  bodies  exhibit  wisdom  and  contrivance. 

(3.)  The  human  frame  especially. 

1.  The  double  members  and  their  uses. 

2.  The  eye,  with  its  curious  optical  mechanism. 

3.  The  spine :  and,  besides  the  frame  of  the  body, 

(4.)  Its  animal  functions,  and  those  of  terrestrial  creatures,  viz. :  (Pp. 
304-306 :) 

1.  Growth. 

2.  Nutrition. 

3.  Spontaneous  motion. 

4.  Sensation. 

(5.)  Intellectual  powers  of  man.  (P.  306.) 

4.  The  instances  of  the  watch,  the  eye,  the  double  organs,  and  the  spine 

largely  illustrated  by  quotations  from  Paley's  Natural  Theology. 
(Pp.  307-322.) 

IV.  Proof  of  the  personality  of  God.  (P.  322-325.) 

III.)  Remarks. 

I.  Absurdity  of  Atheism. 

1.  As  to  the  eternity  of  the  world. 

2.  As  to  the  eternity  of  unorganized  matter. 

3.  Some  modern  schemes  of  Atheism,  viz. : 
(1.)  Buftbn's  organic  molecules. 

(2.)  The  system  of  appetencies.    No  other  answer  necessary  than  that 
these  schemes  are  entirely  wanting  in  evidence. 

II.  Character  of  the  argument  a  priori.  (Pp.  330-335.) 

1.  It  is  unsatisfactory,  and  tends  to  lead  men  away  from  the  sure  argu- 

ment, pointed  out  by  Scripture,  from  "  the  things  which  do  appear." 

2.  The  existence  itself  of  a  supreme  Being  can  hardly  be  shown  by  this 

method.     Indeed,  even  Dr.  S.  Clarke  first  proves  the  existence  of 
"  one  unchangeable  and  independent  Being,"  a  posteriori. 

3.  Some  objections  to  Dr.  S.  Clarke's  view  of  the  necessary  existence  of 

the  supreme  Being. 
The  being  of  God  is  necessary,  because  it  is  underived;  not  undented 
because  it  is  necessary. 


ATTRIBUTES   OF  GOD.  xvil 

(B.)— ATTRIBUTES  OF  GOD.  (Ch.  ii-vii.) 

I.  Unity.  (Ch.  ii.) 

(L)  Scriptural  testimony.  Deut.  vi,  4 ;  iv,  35,  &c. 

1.  The  Scriptural  notion  is,  that  God  is  a  pure  simple  being :  so  one,  that 

there  are  no  other  gods :  so  one,  that  there  can  be  no  other  gods. 

2.  If  we  admit  the  Scriptures,  we  admit  a  Deity :  if  we  admit  one  God, 

we  exclude  all  others. 

(n.)  Evidence  from  reason. 

1.  A  priori  argument  is  here  unobjectionable,  if  logical. 
(1.)  Dr.  Clarke's  shown  to  be  useless. 

(2.)   Wollaston's,  Wilkins',  and  Pearson's  arguments  stated. 
(3.)  The  best  argument  of  the  kind  is  that  from  the  idea  of  absolute 
perfection. 

2.  Proofs  may  be  derived  also  from  the  works  of  God. 

(1.)  In  the  harmony  of  the  universe  we  discern  but  one  Will  and  one 

Intelligence,  and  therefore  but  One  Being. 
(2.)  Uniformity  of  plan  in  the  universe,  is  a  proof  of  the  unity  of  God. 

Illustrations  by  Paley.  (Pp.  340-342.) 

(DX)  Importance  of  this  doctrine. 

The  unity  of  God  the  basis  of  all  true  religion. 

II.  Spirituality.  (Ch.  ii.) 

(I.)  Scriptural  testimony:  "  God  is  a  spirit."     Similar  passages  abound. 
The  immateriality  of  the  divine  Being  is  important,  because  of  its  con- 
nexion with  the  doctrine  of  the  immortality  of  the  human  soul. 

(II.)  Evidence  from  reason,  both  as  to  the  spiritual  nature  of  God,  and  the 
unthinking  nature  of  matter. 
1.  God  is  intelligent,  therefore  God  is  a  spiritual  Being,  because  intelli- 
gence is  not  a  property  of  matter.     For 
(1.)   Unorganized  matter  is  certainly  unintelligent,  hence  intelligence 
cannot  be  an  essential  property  of  matter;  but  it  is  an  essential 
attribute  of  Deity,  hence  the  Deity  cannot  be  material. 
(2.)  Nor  is  intelligence  the  result  of  material  organization,  for 

1.  Vegetables  are  unintelligent. 

2.  Were  intellect  constantly  conjoined  with  animal  organization,  we 

could  deny  the  necessity  of  such  connexion,  but  we  deny  this 

supposed  constant  connexion,  and  thus  take  away  the  basis  of 

Priestley's  argument.     This  denial  is  based  upon  the  following: 

a.)  The  organization  of  the  human  frame  is  often  perfect  after 

death.    But  dead  men  do  not  think, 
b.)  The  organism  of  Adam's  body  was  complete  before  he  became 
a  "  living  soul." 


xviii  ANALYSIS  OF  WATSON'S  INSTITUTES. 

(3.)  But  we  may  be  told,  that  the  subject  supposed  in  the  argument  ia 
a  living  organized  being.  This  introduces  a  new  element,  viz., 
life,  into  the  argument ;  but 

1.  Vegetables  live,  and  yet  do  not  think. 

2.  The  organic  life  of  Bichat  is  common  to  animals  and  vegetables. 

3.  The  animal  life  is  defined  by  Bichat,  Lawrence,  and  even  by  Cu- 

vier,  to  be  the  "  sum  total  of  its  functions  of  a  certain  class." 
Absurdity   of   this    shown  by  quotations   from  Rennell   and 
Barclay. 
(4.)  Further  proofs  that  matter  is  incapable  of  thought,  drawn  from 
its  essential  properties  of  extension,  impenetrability,  divisibility,  &c, 
none  of  which  belong  to  thought. 
(5.)  The  notions,  matter  and  mind,  are  merely  relative.    Reid.    Stewart. 
Immateriality  of  brutes  not  denied. 

III.  Eternity.  (Ch.  iii.) 

1.  Scriptural  notion,  God  had  no  beginning  and  shall  have  no  end :  "  From 

everlasting  to  everlasting,"  &c. 

2.  These  representations  evidently  convey  something  more  than  the  mere 

idea  of  infinite  duration.     Life  is  essential  to  God  :  he  lives  by  virtue 
of  his  own  nature,  which  can  be  said  of  him  alone. 

3.  Some  obscure  notions  of  the  eternity  prevailed  among  the  heathens,  pro- 

bably derived  from  the  Jewish  Scriptures. 

4.  Doctrine  of  the  Eternal  Now  repudiated. 

(1.)  Duration,  as  applied  to  God,  is  an  extension  of  the  same  idea,  as 

applied  to  ourselves. 
(2.)  The  objection  to  this,  (viz.,  that  it  would  argue  imperfection,)  arises 

from  the  confounding  succession  in  the  duration  with  change  in  the 

substance. 
(3.)  If  it  be  said  that  succession  is  only  an  artificial  method  of  conceiving 

or  measuring  duration,  it  may  be  answered,  that  leagues  measure  the 

ocean,  but  leagues  are  not  the  ocean,  though  both  leagues  and  the 

ocean  may  actually  exist. 

IV.  Omnipotence.  (Ch.  iii.) 

(I.)  Scriptural  testimony. 

1.  Reasons  why  this  attribute  is  so  much  dwelt  upon  by  the  sacred  writer? 

viz.,  to  secure  the  obedience,  worship,  and  confidence  of  man. 

2.  Mode  of  its  exhibition  in  the  Scriptures, 
(a.)  By  the  fact  of  creation. 

(b.)  By  the  vastness  and  variety  of  the  works  of  God. 

(c.)  By  the  ease  with  which  he  is  said  to  create  and  uphold  all  things. 

(d.)  By  the  terrible  descriptions  given  of  the  divine  power. 

(e.)  By  the  subjection  of  all  intelligent  beings  to  his  will. 

3.  The  power  of  all  these  descriptions  lies  in  their  truth. 


ATTRIBUTES  OF  GOD.  xix 

4.  The  works  of  God  manifestations,  but  not  the  measure,  of  his  omnipo- 
tence. 

(II.)  Only  limitation  to  the  divine  power :  no  working  of  contradictions,  or 
impossibilities. 

V.  Omnipresence.  (Ch.  iii.) 

1.  Scriptural  testimony. 

2.  Heathen  notions  of  omnipresence  :  some  striking,  but  all  defective. 
8.  Similar  errors  pervade  the  infidel  philosophy  of  modern  times. 

4.  The  Scriptural  phrases  in  which  this  doctrine  is  conveyed,  must  be  taken 

in  their  common-sense  acceptation. 

5.  Illustrations  of  this  doctrine  from  the  material  world,  quoted  from  Amory 

and  Paley. 

6.  The  a  priori  argument  stated. 

7.  The  manner  in  which  God  is  everywhere  present,  incomprehensible. 

VI.  Omniscience.  (Ch.  iv.) 

(I.)  Scriptural  statement  of  the  doctrine. 

1.  Direct  texts :  "  Great  is  the  Lord,  his  understanding  is  infinite,"  &c- 

2.  Argument  in  Psalm  xciv,  from  the  communication  of  knowledge  to 

men,  illustrated  by  a  quotation  from  Tillotson. 

3.  The  sacred  writers  refer  to  the  works  of  God  for  confirmation. 

(II.)  The  Pagans  had  many  fine  sentiments  in  regard  to  the  divine  omni- 
science, but  the  moral  of  the  doctrine  was  wanting. 

(TIL)  The  doctrine  of  foreknowledge  examined.     Unquestionably  it  is  a 
Scriptural  doctrine ;  but  from  its  difficulty,  &c.,  three  theories  have 
arisen  : — 
(1.)  Theory  of  Chevalier  Ramsay.     "It  is  a  matter  of  choice  in  God,  to 
think  of  finite  ideas."     Answer  to  this  theory, 

1.  God's  omnipotence  is  an  infinite  capacity,  but  omniscience  actually 
%  comprehends  all  things  that  are  or  can  be. 

2.  Choice  implies  a  reason,  and  that  implies  knowledge  of  the  things 

rejected. 

3.  Some  contingent  actions  have  been  foreknown  by  God,  and  indeed 

foretold  by  his  prophets. 
(2.)  Theory, — "  That  prescience  of  contingent  events  implies  a  contradic- 
tion, hence  the  absence  of  such  prescience  is  no  dishonour  to  God." 
Answer, 
(a.)  This  theory  is  defective  so  long  as  the  Scriptures  are  allowed  to 
contain  prophecies  of  rewardable  and  punishable  actions,  such  as 

1.  The  long  course  of  events  connected  with  the  destruction  of 

Babylon. 

2.  The  contingencies  involved  in  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem. 


XX  ANALYSIS   OF  WATSON'S  INSTITUTES. 

(b.)  The  principle,  that "  certain  prescience  destroys  contingency,"  can- 
not be  sustained.     1.)  The  manner  of  the  divine  prescience  is  in- 
deed incomprehensible,  but  the  fact  is  undeniably  asserted  in  Scrip- 
ture ;  but  2.)  The  principle  itself  is  founded  upon  a  sophism,  which 
lies  in  supposing  that  contingency  and  certainty  are  opposed  to  each 
other :  while  in  fact  they  are  not ;  but  contingency  and  necessity. 
It  is  knowledge,  and  not  influence.     Opinions  of  Dr.  Sam.  Clarke, 
Dr.  Copleston,  and  Curcellozus. 
(3.)  Theory, — "  That  the  foreknowledge  of  God  must  be  supposed  to 
differ  so  much  from  anything  of  the  kind  in  ourselves,  that  no  argu- 
ment respecting  it  can  be  grounded  on  our  imperfect  notions  :"■ — 
maintained  by  Archbishop  King  and  Dr.  Copleston.     Objections  to 
this  theory  are, 
(a.)  The  difficulty  is  shifted,  not  taken  away. 

(b.)  These  notions  are  dangerous : — for  if,  in  the  language  of  Arch- 
bishop King,  "  we  can  have  no  proper  notion  of  the  faculties  we 
ascribe  to  the  divine  Being,"  we  have  no  proper  revelation  of  the 
divine  character  at  all.  But,  to  examine  more  minutely,  we  say 
that  this  theory  introduces  difficulties,  instead  of  removing  them ; 
and 

1.  It  assumes  that  our  notions  of  God  are  framed  from  the  results  of 

our  observation  of  his  works,  &c,  which  is  not  the  case ; — they 
are  derived  from  express  revelation. 

2.  We  may  form  a  true  notion,  though  not  an  adequate  one,  of  the 

divine  perfections.     To  be  incomprehensible  is  not  to  be  unintel-, 
ligible. 

3.  This  theory  assumes  that  the  nature  of  God  is  essentially  different 

from  the  spiritual  nature  of  man,  which  is  not  the  doctrine  of 
Scripture. 

4.  Wherever  the  language  of  Scripture  is  metaphorical,  it  is  distinctly 

so ; — so  that  the  argument  drawn  from  the  ascription  of  bodily 
functions,  (p.  390,)  and  even  of  human  passions,  (p.  392,)  to 
the  divine  Being,  fails  when  applied  to  intellectual  and  moral 
powers, 
(c.)  We  say  then,  lastly,  (p.  396,)  that  there  is  no  incongruity  between 
divine  prescience  and  human  freedom,  unless  influence  be  super- 
added to  necessitate  the  human  will.     Quotation  from  Edwards. 

VII.  Immutability.  (Ch.  v.) 

(I.)  Scriptural  statement.    "  Of  old  thou  hast  laid,"  &c.     "lam  the  Lord, 
I  change  not."    With  parallel  passages. 

(II.)  Confirmations  from  observation. 

1.  The  stability  of  the  general  order  of  nature. 

2.  The  moral  government  of  God,  and 

(HI.)  This  immutability  is  not  temporary,  but  a  sovereign,  essential  per- 


ATTRIBUTES  OF  GOD.  xxt 

fection  of  the  Deity,  as  we  learn  from  Scripture.    He  change9  not, 
because  he  is  "  the  Lord." 

(IV.)  The  divine  immutability  is  not  contradicted,  but  confirmed,  by  the 
variety  of  his  operations,  regards,  and  affections,  toward  the  same  crea- 
tures under  different  circumstances. 

(V.)  Cautions  are  necessary  against  certain  speculations  on  the  divine  im- 
mutability— such  as,  that  there  are  no  emotions  and  no  succession  of 
ideas  with  God, — or,  according  to  Ridgely,  that  "  God's  knowledge  is 
independent  of  the  object  known." 

1.  In  these,  the  distinction  between  things  possible  and  things  actual  is 

overlooked. 

2.  And  also  the  distinction  between  God's  knowledge  of  all  possible  things 

and  of  those  things  to  which  he  determined,  before  the  creation,  to 
give  actual  existence. 

(VL)  The  liberty  of  God  is  closely  allied  to  his  immutability,  and  a  proper 
idea  of  this  will  correct  the  false  notions  above  alluded  to. 


Vm.  Wisdom.  (Ch.  v.) 

(I.)  The  Scriptures  testify  abundantly  to  the  nice  application  of  God's 
knowledge  to  secure  his  own  ends. 

(II.)  A  few  of  the  characters  of  the  divine  wisdom,  as  thus  exhibited. 

1.  It  acts  for  worthy  ends. 

2.  Its  means  are  simple :  great  effects  from  few  elements. 

3.  Variety  of  equally  perfect  operation  :  e.g.  (1.)  Variety  of  form.     (2.) 

Variety  of  magnitude. 

4.  The  connexion  and  dependence  of  the  works  of  God. 

5.  The  means  by  which  offending  men  are  reconciled  to  God, — the  most 

eminent  manifestations  of  the  wisdom  of  God. 

IX.  Goodness.  (Ch.  vi.) 

(I.)  Scriptural  testimony. 

*1.  It  is  goodness  of  nature,  an  essential  perfection  of  the  divine  character. 
2.  It  is  efficient  and  inexhaustible  : — it  "  endureth  forever." 
8.  The  divine  Being  takes  pleasure  in  the  exercise  of  it : — he  "  delights  in 

mercy." 
4.  Nothing,  capable  of  happiness,  comes  from  his  hand,  except  in  circum- 
stances of  positive  felicity. 

(IL)  Evidence  from  the  natural  and  moral  world. 

(1.)  The  dark  side.     1.)  Positive  evils  on  the  globe :  volcanoes,  sterility, 
&c.     2.)  Diseases  and  sufferings  of  the  human  race.    3.)  Sufferings 
and  death  of  animals. 
(2.)  The  bright  side.     1.)  Design  of  every  contrivance  essentially  benefi- 
cial :  e.  g.,  teeth  are  contrived  to  eat,  not  to  ache.     But  to  this  maj 


XXU  ANALYSIS  OF  WATSON'S  INSTITUTES. 

be  objected  (1)  venomous  animals,  and  (2)  animals  preying  upon  one 
another.  « 

As  to  (1.)  So  far  as  the  animal  itself  is  concerned,  the  contrivance 

is  good. 
As  to  (2.)  The  following  points  are  to  be  considered.     1.)  Immor- 
tality on  earth  is  out  of  the  question.     2.)  Is  not  death  in  this 
way  better  than  decay  ?    3.)  The  system  is  the  spring  of  motion 
and  activity  to  brutes. 
The  bright  side.     2.)  The  happiness  of  animal  existence.     3.)  Many 
alleviations  of  positive  evils.     4.)  Many  ills  are  chargeable  upon 
man's  own  misconduct.     Consider  an  individual  case, — the  good 
circumstances  about  him  far  counterbalance  all  other. 
(3.)  The  theory  of  optimism:  viz.,  that  the  present  system  is  the  best 
which  the  nature  of  things  would  admit. 

1.  The  very  principle  of  this  hypothesis  implies  an  unworthy  notion  of 

God :  considering  it  (1)  as  to  natural,  (2)  as  to  moral  evils. 

2.  We  deny,  then,  that  "  whatever  is,  is  best."    We  can  not  only  con- 

ceive a  better  state  of  things,  but  can  show  that  the  evils  of  the 
present  state  do  not  necessarily  exist.  Sin  has  entered  into  the 
world,  and  God  is  just,  as  well  as  good. 

3.  The  state  of  the  world  exactly  answers  to  the  Scriptural  repre- 

sentations of  the  relations  between  man  and  God.  Illustrated  by 
quotations  from  Gisborne ,  1 .)  As  to  the  actual  appearance  of  the 
globe.  2.)  By  reference  to  the  general  deluge.  3.)  By  the  human 
frame.  4.)  By  the  occupations  of  man — farmers — shepherds — mi- 
ners— manufacturers — merchants. 

(III.)  The  origin  of  evil.  (P.  428.)  There  are  four  leading  opinions. 

1.  Necessity.     2.  The  Manichean  doctrine  of  duality.     3.  The  doctrine 
that  God  is  the  author  of  sin.     And  4.  That  evil  is  the  result  of  the 
abuse  of  moral  freedom. 
1.  Refutes  itself.     2.  Is  now  given  up.     3.  Found  among  the  most  un- 
guarded Calvinistic  writers,  but  now  generally  abandoned.    4.  Is 
the  opinion  generally  adopted,  and  agrees  with  the   Scriptural 
statement  of  the  creation  and  fall  of  man. 

(IV.)  The  mercy  of  God  is  a  mode  of  his  goodness. 


X.  Holiness.  (Ch.  vii.) 

Preliminary.  1.  It  is  clear  that  God  "loveth  righteousness  and  hateth 

iniquity." 
2.  And  this  from  some  essential  principle  of  his  nature.     This  principle 

we  call  holiness,  which  exhibits  itself  in  two  great  branches,  viz. : — 

(I.)  Justice,  1.  Character  of,  when  particular,  (not  universal.) 

(a.)  Legislative,  which  determines  man's  duty  and  binds  him  to  its  per- 
formance. 

A 


PERSONS   OF  THE   GODHEAD.  XXU1 

(b.)  Judicial  or  distributive,  which  respects  rewards  and  punishments ; 
and  is  either  1)  pramiative,  or  2)  vindictive,  but  always  impartial. 
2.  Reconciled  with  the  divine  administration. 

(a.)  By  the  fact  that  man  is  under  a  dispensation  of  mercy. 

(b.)  By  the  doctrine  of  general  judgment,  which  is  grounded  on  that 
of  redemption. 
8.  Inferences. 

(a.)  That  great  offenders  may  prosper  in  this  life,  without  impeachment 
of  God's  government. 

(b.)  That  God's  children  may  be  afflicted  and  oppressed. 

(c.)  That  an  administration  of  grace  may  be  apparently  unequal  with- 
out injustice.     But, 

(d.)  As  nations  have  no  posthumous  existence,  national  rewards  and 
punishments  have  been  in  all  ages  visible  and  striking. 

(II.)  Truth,  which  in   Scripture  is  contemplated  under   the  two  great 
branches  of  veracity  and  faithfulness. 

1.  His  veracity  regards  his  toord.     No  deception  here. 

2.  His  faithfulness  regards  his  engagements,  which  never  fail. 

A  few  general  ascriptions  of  excellence  may  here  be  noticed.  1.)  God 
is  perfect.  2.)  God  is  all-sufficient.  3.)  God  is  unsearchable.  Sup- 
port each  by  Scriptural  passages. 


(C.)— PERSONS  OF  THE  GODHEAD. 
(I.)  Doctrine  of  the  trinity.  (Ch.  viii,  ix.) 

I.  Preliminary  remarks  and  explanations. 

1.  This  doctrine  cannot  be  demonstrated  either  a  priori  or  a  posteriori 

Attempts  of  Poiret,  Kidd,  &c,  noticed.    It  rests  entirely  on  Scripture. 

2.  Pretensions  to  explain  this  doctrine  are  highly  objectionable. 

3.  Perhaps  it  may  be  admitted  that  types  and  symbols  of  the  mystery  of 

the  trinity  are  to  be  found  in  natural  objects. 

4.  Explanation  of  the  term  person  :  1.)  In  ordinary  language.     2.)  In  a 

strict  philosophical  sense.  It  is  not  applied  in  the  latter  sense  to  the 
divine  Being ;  but  the  distinct  persons  are  represented  as  having  a 
common  foundation  in  one  being :  the  manner  of  the  union  being  in- 
comprehensible. Objection  to  the  term,  as  not  being  Scriptural, 
answered. 

5.  Leading  differences  of  opinion  among  the  orthodox.     Howe,  Water- 

land,  Pearson,  Bull. 

H.  Importance  of  the  doctrine  stated,  (I.)  Chiefly  in  answer  to  Dr.  Priestley. 

1.  The  knowledge  of  God  is  fundamental  to  religion. 

2.  Dr.  P.  allows  its  necessity  "  to  explain  some  particular  texts."     But 

we  can  show  that  these  "texts"  comprehend  a  large  portion  of 
Scripture. 


Xxiv  ANALYSIS   OF  WATSON'S  INSTITUTES. 

3.  Our  views  of  God,  as  the  object  of  our  worship,  are  affected. 

4.  Dr.  P.  objects, '.'  that  no  fact  in  nature,  nor  purpose  in  morals,  requires 

this  doctrine." 

1.)  As  to  the  natural  world,  (1.)  It  is  adapted  to  the  scheme  of  orthodox 
Christianity,  and  not  to  Socinianism,  which  does  not  admit  of  re- 
demption. (2.)  The  duration  of  the  natural  world,  is  another  re- 
lation to  theology.     It  was  made  for  Christ. 

2.)  As  to  morals.  (1.)  Morals  are  conformity  to  a  divine  law,  which 
must  take  its  character  of  its  Author.  (2.)  Faith  is  obedience  to 
command,  and  therefore  part  of  morals. 

(II.)  Importance  of  this  doctrine,  on  broader  grounds. 

1.  Our  love  to  God,  which  is  the  substance  of  religion,  is  essentially  a& 

fected  by  our  views  of  this  doctrine. 

2.  In  other  equally  essential  views,  the  denial  of  Christ's  divinity  essen- 

tially alters  the  Christian  scheme,  viz. 
1.)  The  doctrine  of  atonement  is  denied  by  Socinians,  though  inconsia 

tently  admitted  by  Arians. 
2.)  Views  of  the  evil  of  sin  are  essentially  modified. 
3.)  The  character  of  Christian  experience  essentially  changed,  as  to 

repentance,  faith,  prayer,  love,  &c. 
4.)  The  religious  affections  of  hope,  trust,  joy,  &c,  are  all  interfered 

with. 
5.)   The  language  of  the  Church  of  Christ  must  be  altered  and  brought 

down  to  these  views. 
6.)  The  doctrine  of  divine  agency  must  be^changed. 

3.  The  denial  of  the  doctrine  of  the  trinity  affects  the  credit  of  the  Holy 

Scriptures ;  for  if  this  doctrine  be  not  contained  in  them,  their  ten- 
dency to  mislead  is  obvious. 

III.  Difficulties  are  said  to  attend  the  reception  of  this  doctrine.     But, 

1.  Mere  difficulty  in  conceiving  of  what  is  proper  to  God,  forms  no 

objection. 

2.  No  contradiction  is  implied  in  this  great  doctrine. 

3.  The  Arian  and  Socinian  hypotheses  do  not  relieve  us  from  difficulties. 

IV.  Scripture  testimony.  (Ch.  ix.) 

Preliminary.  Every  argument  in  favour  of  the  trinity  flows  from  the 
principle  of  the  absolute  unity  of  God,  which  is  laid  down  in  the 
Scriptures  with  the  utmost  solemnity,  and  guarded  with  the  utmost 
care  by  precepts,  threatenings,  and  promises.  But  in  examining 
what  the  Scriptures  teach  concerning  this  one  God,  we  find  that, 

A.  The  very  names  of  God  have  plural  forms,  and  are  connected  with 

plural  modes  of  speech.  (P.  467.) 
Examples:  Deuteronomy  vi,  4;  Aleim;  Adonim,  &c. 

B.  Three  persons,  and  three  only,  are  spoken  of  in  Scripture  under  divine 

titles.    Example 


PERSONS   OF  THE   GODHEAD.  XXV 

1.  Solemn  form  of  Jewish  benediction.    Num.  vi,  24-27. 

2.  The  vision  of  Isaiah,  with  the  allusions  to  it  by  St.  John  a»d  St.  Paul 

in  the  New  Testament.     (Pp.  470,  471.) 

3.  Various  passages  in  the  New  Testament  might  be  cited — in  which 

sometimes  two,  sometimes  three,  but  never  more  than  three,  persons 
are  spoken  of.     1  John  v,  7,  is  laid  out  of  the  argument,  as  un- 
certain. 
C.  The  great  proof  on  which  the  doctrine  rests : — the  multiplied  instances 

in  which  two  persons  are  spoken  of,  as  associated  with  God  in  his 

perfections.  (P.  473.) 

1.  The  outline  of  Scriptural  testimony  is  given,  as  to  the  Son. 

2.  The  same  as  to  the  Spirit. 

Therefore,  as  the  Scriptures  uniformly  declare  but  one  God,  and  yet  do 
throughout  declare  three  persons  divine, — we  harmonize  these  apparently  op- 
posite doctrines  in  the  proposition — The  three  persons  are  one  God- 
These  views  are  maintained  in  the  orthodox  church,  and  are  chargeable  with 
no  greater  mystery  than  is  assignable  to  the  Scriptures.  We  do  not  give  up 
the  unity  of  God.   The  Socinian  unity  is  a  unity  of  one :  ours  is  a  unity  of  three. 

(II.)  Divinity  of  Christ,  (Ch.  x-xv,)  proved, 

A.  By  his  pre-existence,  (Ch.  x.) 

B.  Because  he  was  the  Jehovah  of  the  Old  Testament,  (Ch.  xi.) 

C.  Because  divine  titles  are  ascribed  to  him,  (Ch.  xiu) 

D.  Because  divine  attributes  belong  to  him,  (Ch.  xiii.) 

E.  Because  divine  acts  are  ascribed  to  him,  (Ch.  xiv.) 

F.  Because  divine  worship  is  paid  to  him,  (Ch.  xv.) 

A.  Pre-existence  of  Christ.  (Ch.  x.) 

The  pre-existence  of  Christ,  if  established,  though  it  does  not  affect  the 
Arian,  destroys  the  Socinian  hypothesis :  hence  both  ancient  and 
modern  Socinians  have  bent  all  arts  of  interpretation  against  those 
passages  which  expressly  declare  it,  of  which  the  following  are 
examples : — 

1.  John  i,  la :  "  He  that  cometh  after  me  is  preferred  before  me,  for  he 

was  before  me."  The  Socinians  interpret  the  last  clause  in  the 
sense  of  dignity,  and  not  of  time.  But  John  uses  the  same  phrase 
elsewhere  in  regard  to  priority  of  time.  If  the  last  referred  to  the 
dignity  of  Christ,  it  would  have  been  ton,  not  nv, — he  is,  not 
he  was. 

2.  The  passages  which  express  that  Christ  came  down  from  heaven. 
(1.)  The  early  Socinians  supposed  that  Christ  was   translated   to 

heaven  after  his  birth.     Unsupported  by  Scripture. 
(2.)  The    modern   Socinians  conveniently  resolve   the  whole  into 
figure: — 1.  Ascending  into  heaven.  2.  Coming  down  from  heaven. 

3.  John  vi,  62  :  "  What  and  if  ye  shall  see  the  Son  of  man  ascend  up 

where  he  was  before  ?" 
Vol.  I.— C. 


Xivi  ANALYSIS   OF  WATSON'S  INSTITUTES. 

4.  The  phrase,  to  "be  sent  from  God." 

5.  John  viii,  58 :  "  Before  Abraham  was,  I  am." 

6.  John  xvii,  5 :  "  The  glory  which  I  had  with  thee  before  the  world  was." 
It  has  thus  been  shown  that  Christ  had  an  existence  previous  to  his  in- 
carnation, and  previous  to  the  very  foundation  of  the  world. 

B.  Jesus  Christ  the  Jehovah  of  the  Old  Testament.  (Ch.  xi.) 

In  the  Old  Testament  we  cannot  fail  to  notice  the  frequent  supernatural 
appearances  to  the  ancient  patriarchs  and  prophets.  The  facts  can- 
not be  disputed ;  and  in  order  to  show  their  bearing  upon  the  ques- 
tion of  the  divinity  of  Christ,  we  have  three  propositions  to  establish, 
viz. : — 

I.  The  person  who  made  these  appearances  was  truly  a  divine  person. 

1.  Proof     He  bears  the  names  of  the  divine  Being,  and  was  the 

object  of  worship  to  the  Israelites.  (1.)  Hagar  in  the  wilderness. 
(2.)  Abraham  in  the  plains  of  Mamre.  (3.)  Isaac  and  Jacob. 
(4.)  The  same  Jehovah  visible  to  Moses.  The  same  Jehovah 
attended  the  Israelites. 

2.  Objections.     (1.)   This  personage  is  called  "the   Angel  of  the 

Lord."  Ans.  Angel  is  a  designation  of  office,  not  of  nature. 
The  collation  of  a  few  passages  will  show  that  Jehovah  and 
the  Angel  of  the  Lord,  in  this  eminent  sense,  were  the  same 
person.  (2.)  The  Arian  hypothesis  is,  that  the  appearing  angel 
was  Christ  personating  the  Deity.  Shown  to  be  untenable. 
(3.)  The  Socinian  notion  is  the  marvellous  doctrine  of  occasional 
personality,  to  use  Priestley's  term.  Mysterious  and  absurd 
enough. 

II.  This  divine  person  was  not  God  the  Father. 

1.  The  argument  from  the  passage,  "No  man  hath  seen  God,"  &c. 

is  plausible,  but  cannot  be  depended  upon. 

2.  The  real  argument  is  from  the  appelation  angel. 

III.  This  divine  person  was  the  promised  Messiah,  and  consequently 
Jesus  Christ. 

(1.)  Scriptural  proof . 

1.  Jeremiah  asserts  that  the  new  covenant  was  to  be  made  by  the 

same  person  who  made  the  old :  "  Behold  the  days  come,"  &c. 

2.  Malachi's  striking  prediction,  "  Behold  I  will  send  my  messenger," 

&c.  This  prophecy  is  expressly  applied  to  Christ,  by  St.  Mark. 

3.  "  The  voice  of  him  that  crieth,"  &c.     Here  the  application  of  the 

prophecy  was  expressly  made  to  our  Lord,  by  the  Baptist. 

4.  "  Behold  a  virgin  shall  conceive,"  &c.     "  Unto  us  a  child  is  born." 

5.  Psalm  lxviii  is  applied  by  St.  Paul  to  Christ. 

6.  Christ  is  represented  by  St.  Peter,  as  preaching  by  his  Spirit 

in  the  days  of  Noah. 

7.  St.  Paul,  1  Cor.,  "  Neither  let  us  tempt  Christ,  as  some  of  them 

also  tempted." 


PERSONS   OF  THE   GODHEAD.  XXV11 

8.  Heb.  xii,  25,  26,  "  See  that  ye  refuse  not  him  that  speaketh." 
(2.)   Confirmation   by  the   testimony  of  the  fathers,  viz. : — Justin 
Martyr,    Irenseus,   Tertullian,   Clemens,    Origen,   Theophilus, 
Cyprian,  Hilary,  and  Basil. 
(3.)  Two  objections  to  this  doctrine  from  Scripture  are  easily  answered. 

1.  "  God  who  at  sundry  times,"  &c.     Ans.  We  do  allow  the  oc- 

casional manifestation  of  the  Father  to  be  recorded  in  the 
Old  Testament 

2.  "  If  the  word  spoken  by  angels"  &c.    Here  the  apostle  refers  to 

the  judicial  law  which  was  given  through  angels.  They 
were  not  the  authors  of  the  law,  but  the  medium  of  its  com- 
munication to  men. 

C.  Divine  titles  ascribed  to  Christ.  (Ch.  xii.) 

If  the  titles  given  to  Christ  in  the  Scriptures  are  such  as  can  designate  a 
divine  Being,  then  is  Christ  divine,  otherwise  the  Scriptures  deceive. 

I.  The  title  Jehovah. 

Instances  of  this  have  already  been  given,  and  indeed  Socinians 
admit  the  fact  by  their  attempts  to  explain  it  away : — thus  Dr. 
Priestley  asserts  that  the  name  Jehovah  is  sometimes  given  to 
places.  Miserable  pretence.  Force  of  the  argument  distinctly 
stated.  (P.  507.) 

II.  The  title  Lord,  (Kvpioc,)  which  is  applied  to  Christ  in  the  New 

Testament,  is  in  its  highest  sense  universally  allowed  to  belong  to 
God  :  and  we  can  show  that  it  is  applied  to  Christ  in  this  highest 
tense. 

1.  Both  by  the  LXX.  and  the  writers  of  the  New  Testament,  it  is 

the  term  by  which  the  name  Jehovah  is  translated.  (P.  508.) 

2.  When  the  title  is  not  employed  in  the  New  Testament  to  render 

the  name  Jehovah,  it  is  still  manifest,  by  the  context,  that  the 
writers  considered  and  used  it  as  a  divine  title.  (P.  510.) 

III.  The  title  God.     It  is  admitted  even   by  Socinians,  that  Jesus 
Christ  is  called  God.    We  have  then  to  show 

1.  That  in  its  highest  sense,  the  term  God  involves  the  notion  of  abso- 

lute divinity.     Sir  I.  Newton  and  Dr.  S.  Clarke  consider  it  a 
relative  term,  importing,  strictly,  nothing  more  than  dominion. 
Ans.  (1.)  By  Dr.  Waterland.     (2.)  By  Dr.  Randolph. 

2.  That  the  term  is  found  used  of  Christ  in  this  highest  sense.  (P.  514.) 
(1.)  Matt  i,  23,  "  Emanuel — God  with  us."  •  The  Socinians  ob- 
ject to  this  passage,  1.)  That  it  is  of  doubtful  authority;  but 
this  objection  rests  on  (confessedly)  a  narrow  foundation. 
2.)  That  the  divinity  of  Christ  can  no  more  be  argued  from 
the  name  Emanuel,  than  the  divinity  of  Eli,  whose  name 
signifies  "  my  God."  But  this  was  the  common  name  of  Eli ; 
not  so  Emanuel,  which  was  a  descriptive  title,  given  by  reve- 
lation. 


Xxviii  ANALYSIS  OF  WATSONS  INSTITUTES. 

(2.)  Luke  i,  16,  17  :  "  And  many  of  the  children  of  Israel  shall  he 
turn  to  the  Lord  their  God,"  &c. 

(3.)  John  i,  1 :  "  In  the  beginning  was  the  Word,  and  the  Word 
was  with  God,  and  the  Word  was  God,"  &c.  1.)  The  Logon 
in  this  passage  is  called  God,  in  the  highest  sense.  Three 
reasons.  2.)  Criticism  on  the  Greek  article,  annexed  by  Dr. 
Middleton.  3.)  Socinians  assert  that  yivofiai  never  signifies 
to  create.  Ans.  It  is  thus  used  in  the  following  passages  : 
Heb.  iv,  3  ;  Heb.  xi,  3 ;  James  iii,  9.  4.)  They  translate  the 
passage  also,  "  All  things  were  made  for  him."  This  inter- 
pretation effectually  destroys  the  other.  But  did,  with  a  geni- 
tive, denotes  not  the  final  but  the  efficient  cause. 

(4.)  John  xx,  28  :  "  Thomas  answered  .  .  .  my  Lord  and  my 
God."     Socinians  make  this  a  mere  ejaculation  ! 

(5.)  Titus  ii,  13:  "Looking  for  that  blessed  hope  .  .  .  great 
God  and  our  Saviour  Jesus  Christ." 

(6.)  Heb.  i,  8 :  "  But  unto  the  Son  he  saith,  Thy  throne,  O  God, 
is  forever  and  ever."     Two  Socinian  objections  answered. 

(7.)  1  John  v,  20 :  "  This  is  the  true  God,  and  eternal  life." 

(8.)  Bom.  ix,  5  :  "  Whose  are  the  fathers  .  .  .  God  blessed 
forever."  1.)  Four  points  to  be  noted  in  regard  to  this  text. 
2.)  All  attempts  to  weaken  the  force  of  this  powerful  passage 
have  failed. 

IV.  The  title  "  King  of  Israel."  The  writers  of  the  New  Testament 
could  not  use  this  appellation  in  a  lower  sense  than  that  which  it 
holds  in  the  Old  Testament :  it  is  sufficient  to  show  that  it  was  un- 
derstood by  the  Jews  to  imply  divinity.     1 .)  Nathanael's  exclama- 

M  tion,  and  2.)  The  expressions  of  the  revilers  at  the  crucifixion, 
are  sufficient  proofs  of  this. 

V.  The  title  "  Son  of  God,"  demands  a  larger  notice,  inasmuch  as 

Socinians  restrain  its  significance  to  the  mere  humanity  of  Christ ; 
and  many  who  hesitate  not  to  admit  the  divinity  of  Christ,  coin- 
cide with  the  Socinians  as  to  the  Sonship.     This  subject  is  treated 
(pp.  528-562)  as  follows  :— 
The  fact  is  not  disputed,  that  the  title  Son  of  God  was  applied  to  Christ 
The  question  then  is,  what  this  title  imported.     One  opinion  is, 
(I.)  That  the  title  was  assumed  by  Christ  because  of  his  miraculous 
conception.     But 

1.  Our  Lord  always  permitted  the  Jews  to  consider  him  the 

son  of  Joseph. 

2.  When  arguing  with  the  Jews,  expressly  to  establish  that  God 

was  his  Father,  Christ  made  no  reference  to  the  miraculous 
conception. 

3.  Nathanael  knew  not  but  Christ  was  son  of  Joseph,  yet  called 

him  "  The  Son  of  God,  and  the  King  of  Israel." 

4.  The  confession  of  Peter,  "  Thou  art  the  Christ,  the  Son  of  the 


PERSONS   OF  THE  GODHEAD.  xxix 

living  God,"  was  made  without  reference  to  the  miraculous 
conception ;  and  probably  before  that  fact  was  made  known 
to  the  apostles. 
[  *I.)  Another  opinion  is,  that  the  title,  "  Son  of  God,"  was  sim- 
ply an  appellation  of  Messiah, — an  official,  not  a  personal 
designation.     But  the  evangelical  history  fully  refutes  this 
notion,  by  showing  that  the  Jews  regarded  the  title  "  Son  of 
God  "  as  necessarily  involving  a  claim  to  divinity,  but  did 
not  so  regard  "  Messiaii." 
(HI.)  (P.  531.)  In  the  Old  Testament  we  find  that  the  title,  "  Son 
of  God,"  was  a  personal-  designation ;  that  the  Sonship  was  es- 
sential, but  the  Messiahship  accidental. 

1.  Psa.  ii:  "  Thou  art  my  Son,  this  day  have  I  begotten  thee." 

(1.)  This  cannot  be  interpreted  with  reference  to  the  mi- 
raculous conception.  (2.)  Nor  with  reference  to  the  resur- 
rection ;  for  1.)  Christ  was  asserted  to  be  the  "  beloved  Son," 
before  his  resurrection ;  and  2.)  Paul,  in  the  Epistle  to  the 
Romans,  tells  us  that  the  resurrection  of  Christ  was  the 
declaration  of  his  Sonship,  not  the  ground  of  it.  Argument 
corroborated  by  a  quotation  from  Witsius. 

2.  Proverbs  viii,  22.  Solomon  introduces  the  personal  wisdom  of 

God,  under  the  same  relation  of  a  Son. 
The  ancient  Jewish  writers  speak  of  the  generation  of  "  Wisdo7n," 
and  by  that  term  mean  "  the  Word." 

3.  Micah  v,  2 :  "  But  thou,  Bethlehem  Ephrata,"  &c.     This  pas- 

sage carefully  distinguishes  the  human  nature  from  the 
eternal  generation: — as  two  goings  forth  are  spoken  of,  1.) 
A  natural  one,  "from  Bethlehem  to  Judah;"  2.)  Another 
and  higher,  "from  the  dags  of  eternity." 
The  glosses  of  Priestley  and  others,  which  would  make  this  pas- 
sage refer  to  the  promises  or  purpose  of  God  from  everlast- 
ing, are  shown  to  be  absurd. 

4.  Prov.  xxx,  4 :  "  What  is  his  name,  and  what  is  his  Son's  name," 

&c.     Here  there  is  no  reference  to  Messiahship. 

Thus  the  Scriptures  of  the  Old  Testament  furnished  the  Jews 
with  the  idea  of  a  personal  Son  in  the  divine  nature. 
IV.)  The  same  ideas  of  divine  Sonship  are  suggested  in  the  New 
Testament.  (P.  539.) 

1.  "  When  Jesus  was  baptized  .  .  .  This  is  my  beloved  Son, 
in  whom  I  am  well  pleased."  (1.)  This  name,  Son  of  Godt 
was  not  here  given  with  reference  to  the  resurrection.  (2.) 
Nor  with  reference  to  the  Messiahship.  Nor  (3.)  With 
reference  to  the  miraculous  conception.  (P.  540.)  It  must 
follow  then  that  Christ  was,  in  a  higher  nature  than  his 
human,  and  for  a  higher  reason  than  an  official  one,  the 
"  Son  of  God." 


XXX  ANALYSIS  OF  WATSON'S  INSTITUTES. 

2.  The  epithet, "  only  begotten"  affords  further  proof  of  the  Son- 

ship  of  Christ  in  his  divine  nature.  (P.  542.) 

3.  Those  passages  which  declare  that  all  things  were  made  by 

the  Son,  and  that  God  "  sent  his  Son,"  imply  that  the  Creator 
was  the  Son  of  God  before  he  was  sent  into  the  world. 
(P.  543.) 
It  is  assumed,  but  not  proved,  by  some,  that  the  title  Son  is  thus 
applied  by  a  mere  interchange  of  titles  between  the  human 
and  divine  nature. 

4.  Those  passages  which  connect  the  title  "  Son  "  immediately, 

and  by  way  of  eminence,  with  the  divinity,  remain  to  be  con- 
sidered. (P.  545.)  Such  are — "  My  Father  worketh  hi- 
therto, and  I  work."  John  v,  17.  "I  and  my  Father  are 
one."  John  x,  30.  "  Art  thou  the  Son  of  God  ?"  Ans.  by 
Christ :  "  Ye  say  that  I  am." 

5.  In  the  apostolic  writings  we  find  equal  proof  that  the  title 

"  Son  of  God "  was  used  even  by  way  of  opposition  to  the 
human  nature.  (1.)  Rom.  i,  3, 4 :  "  Declared  to  be  the  Son 
of  God  with  power,"  &c.  (2.)  The  apostle's  argument  in 
the  first  chapter  of  Epistle  to  Hebrews.  (3.)  Rom.  viii,  3  : 
"  God  sending  his  own  Son  in  the  likeness  of  sinful  flesh." 
(4.)  "  Moses  was  faithful  as  a  servant,  but  Christ  as  a  Son." 
(5.)  All  those  passages  in  which  the  first  person  is  called  the 
Father  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ. 

Recapitulation  of  the  argument.     (Pp.  553,  554.) 
(V.)  Importance  of  the  admission  of  the  eternal  filiation  of  our 
Lord.  (P.  554.) 

Some  divines,  believing  the  divinity  of  Christ,  have  yet  opposed 
the  eternal  Sonship ;  but  they  have  nearly,  if  not  quite, 
adopted  Unitarian  modes  of  interpretation ;  and  on  a  point 
confessedly  fundamental,  they  differ  from  the  opinions  held 
by  the  orthodox  church  in  all  ages.  The  following  conse- 
quences of  denying  the  divine  filiation  of  Christ  are  worthy 
of  note : — 

1.  A  loose  method  of  interpretation. 

2.  The  destruction  of  all  relation  among  the  persons  of  the 

Godhead. 

3.  The  loss  of  the  Scriptural  idea,  that  the  Father  is  the  foun- 

tain of  Deity. 

4.  The  same  of  the  perfect  equality,  and  yet  subordination,  of 

the  Son. 

5.  The  overthrow  of  the  doctrine  of  the  love  of  the  Father  in 

the  gift  of  his  Son.     Episcopius's  argument. 
(VI.)  Objections  to  the  divine  Sonship  considered.  (Pp.  558-562.) 
VL  The  title  Word.  (P.  562.)   Used  principally  by  the  evangelist 
John.     Two  inquiries  arise  here,  viz. : — 


PERSONS   OF  THE  OODHEAD.  XXXI 

I.  Whence  the  evangelist  drew  the  use  of  this  appellation  ?    Ans. 
(1.)  From  the  Scriptures  of  the  Old  Testament :  by  quotations 

from  which  it  is  shown  to  be  a  theological  and  not  a  philosophic 
title ;  and  one  which  had  received  the  stamp  of  inspiration, 
a.  Genesis  xv,  1.  b.  Psalm  xviii,  30.  c.  1  Samuel  iii,  21. 
d.  2  Samuel  vii,  21 ;  1  Chronicles  xvii,  19. 

(2.)  The  Targums  further  evince  the  theological  origin  of  this  ap- 
pellation. Illustrated  by  a  number  of  quotations  and  referen- 
ces.    (Pp.  564-567.) 

(3.)  Philo  and  the  philosophic  Jews,  then,  may  be  spared  in  this 
inquiry;  but  it  can  be  shown,  1.  That  if  Philo  possessed  the 
idea  of  a  personal  Logos,  he  did  not  derive  it  from  Plato.  2. 
That  he  did  derive  it  from  the  established  theology  of  his  na- 
tion.    (Pp.  568-571.) 

II.  What  reasons  led  the  evangelist  to  adopt  thi?  appellation  f  (P.  572.) 
It  is  supposed  that  John  wrote  with  a  view  to  the  suppression  of 

the  Gnostic  heresy  :  in  order  to  afford  the  clearest  refutation 
of  those  who  denied  the  pre-existence  of  Christ. 

III.  Argument  from  its  use,  against  Socinianinism.  (P.  575.) 

1.  St.  John  says,  the  Logos  "  was  that  light,  but  John  Baptist  was 

not."  Here  is  a  parallel  between  two  persons — not  between 
a  person  and  an  attribute. 

2.  The  Logos  became  man.     But  how  could  an  attribute  become 

man  ?  The  personality  of  the  Logos  being  established,  his 
divinity  follows  of  course. 

D.  Christ  possessed  of  divine  attributes.  (Ch.  xiii.) 

God  is  made  known  to  us  by  his  attributes.  Should,  then,  the  same  attri- 
butes be  found  ascribed  in  Scripture  to  Christ,  we  infer  directly  that 
Christ  is  God. 

L  Eternity  is  ascribed  to  Christ.  (1.)  Isaiah  ix,  6.  (2.)  Rev.  i,  17, 18. 
(3.)  Rev.  i,  8.  (4.)  Hebrews  xiii,  8.  (5.)  Hebrews  i,  10-12.  (6.) 
u  Eternal  life." 

H  Omnipresence  is  ascribed  to  him.  (1.)  "  No  man  hath  ascended  up 
to  heaven,"  &c.  (2.)  "  Where  two  or  three  are  gathered  together,"  &c. 
(3.)  "  Lo,  I  am  with  you  always,"  &c.   (4.)  "  By  him  all  things  consist." 

IH.  Omniscience  is  ascribed  to  Christ.  Two  kinds  of  knowledge  pecu- 
liar to  God : — 

1.  A  perfect  knowledge  of  the  thoughts  and  intents  of  the  human 

heart.  This  is  expressly  attributed  to  Christ.  (1.)  "He  knew  what 
was  in  man."  (2.)  The  word  of  God  is  a  discerner  of  the  thoughts 
and  intents  of  the  heart     (3.)  Interpretation  of  Mark  xiii,  32. 

2.  The  knowledge  of  futurity.     This  is  also  ascribed  to  Christ,  John  vi, 

64,  and  xiii,  11 ;  and  all  the  predictions  uttered  by  him,  and  which 
are  nowhere  referred  by  him  to  inspiration,  are  in  proof  of  his 
possessing  this  attribute. 


xxii  ANALYSIS  OF  WATSON'S  INSTITUTES. 

IV.  Omnipotence  is  ascribed  to  Christ.  (1.)  Rev.  i,  8.  (2.)  To  the 
Jews  he  said,  "  What  things  soever  the  Father  doeth,  these  also  doeth 
the  Son  likewise."  (3.)  All  the  Scriptural  argument  from  the  as- 
cription of  divine  attributes  to  Christ,  may  be  summed  up  with  his 
own  remarkable  declaration,  "  All  things  which  the  Father  hath  are 
mine."  John  xvi,  15. 

E.  Divine  acts  are  ascribed  to  Christ.  (Ch.  xiv.) 

I.  Creation.     Socinians  admit  that  creation  out  of  nothing  is  the  work  of 

a  divine  power,  and  therefore  interpret  those  passages  of  the  New 
Testament  which  speak  of  Christ  as  a  Creator,  as  referring  to  a  moral 
creation,  or  to  the  regulation  of  all  things  in  the  evangelical  dispen- 
sation.    Absurdity  of  this. 

1.  The  creation  of  "  all  things  "  is  ascribed  to  Christ,  in  the  introduction 

to  St.  John's  Gospel.     This  can  only  be  understood  of  a  physical 
creation. 

2.  "  By  whom  also  he  made  the  worlds."  Heb.  i,  2.     Two  Socinian 

glosses  are  offered. 

(1.)  To  render  the  words,  "for  whom  also,"  &c.  But  dia  with  a 
genitive,  never  signifies  the  final  cause,  setting  aside  the  absur- 
dity of  the  worlds  being  made  for  a  mere  man. 

(2.)  To  understand  "  the  worlds  " — Tovg  aiuvag — for  the  gospel  dis- 
pensation ; — but  the  same  phrase  is  used  in  the  eleventh  chapter, 
where  it  can  only  be  understood  of  a  physical  creation : — and  in 
the  close  of  the  first  chapter  the  apostle  reiterates  the  doctrine 
of  the  creation  of  the  world  by  Jesus  Christ. 

3.  Colossians  i,  15-17:  "Who  is   the  image    of  the  invisible  God, 

the   first-born  of  every   creature :   for  by  him  were  all  things 
created,"  &c. 
Socinian  gloss : — "  Here  is  meant  the  great  change  introduced  into  the 
moral  world  by  the  dispensation  of  the  gospel." 
(1.)  The  Arian  notion,  that  by " first-born "  is  meant  "first  created," 
is  easily  refuted.     As  to  date  of  his  being,  he  was  "before  all 
created  things."     As  to  the  manner  of  it,  he  was  by  generation, 
not  creation. 
(2.)  As  for  the  Socinian  gloss,  it  makes  the  apostle  say,  that  Christ 
was  the  first-made  member  of  the  Christian  Church ;  and  the 
reason  for  this  is,  that  he  made  the  Church ! 

II.  The  preservation  of  the  universal  frame  of  things  is  ascribed  to  Christ. 

III.  The  final  destruction  of  material  nature  is  also  expressly  attributed  to 
him. 

IV.  Our  Lord  claims,  generally,  to  perform  the  works  of  his  Father : 
also,  to  possess  original  miraculous  powers. 

V.  He  promises  to  send  the  Holy  Spirit. 

VI.  The  forgiveness  of  sins,  unquestionably  a  peculiar  act  of  Deity,  was 
claimed  by  Christ. 


PERSONS  OF  THE  GODHEAD.  XXXW 

F.  Divine  worship  paid  to  Christ.  (Ch.  xv.) 
(a.)  The  fact  established.  (Pp.  596-606.) 
•    I.  Prior  to  his  ascension. 

1.)  The  case  of  the  leper.    2.)  Of  the  blind  man.    3.)  The  disciples. 
N.  B.  Our  Lord  did  not  receive  these  acts  of  worship  as  a  civil  ruler. 
TL.  Subsequent  to  his  ascension. 

1.)  Luke  xxiv,  51,  52 :  "  He  was  parted  from  them,  and  carried  up 
into  heaven,  and  they  worshipped  him"  &c.  2.)  The  prayer  of 
the  apostles,  when  filling  up  the  place  of  Judas.  3.)  Supplica- 
tions of  Stephen,  the  protomartyr.  Futility  of  the  Socinian 
gloss,  and  that  of  Dr.  Priestley.  4.)  Paul's  prayer,  when  afflict- 
ed with  the  "  thorn  in  the  flesh."  5.)  Paul's  prayer  in  behalf 
of  the  Thessalonians. 

III.  Adoration  of  Christ  among  heavenly  beings. 

1.)  "  Let  all  the  angels  of  God  worship  him."  Psalm  xcvii.  Horsley's 
Remarks.     2.)  Psalm  Ixxii.    3.)  The  Book  of  Revelation. 

IV.  All  the  doxologies  to  Christ,  and  all  the  benedictions  made  in  his 
name,  in  common  with  those  of  the  Father  and  the  Holy  Spirit, 
are  forms  of  worship. 

(b.)  Its  bearing  examined.  (P.  607.) 

1.  From  the  avowed  religious  sentiments  of  the  apostles,  they  could  not 

pay  religious  worship  to  Christ  unless  they  considered  him  a  divine 
person. 

2.  We  collect  the  same  from  their  uniform  practice. 

3.  The  Arian  doctrine  of  supreme  and  inferior  worship  refuted  by  Dr. 

Waterland. 

4.  The  Socinians,  more  consistently,  refuse  to  "honour  the  Son  as  .     . 

.  .  the  Father."  The  passage,  Philip,  ii,  5-7,  is  shown  to  contain 
the  doctrine  of  the  divinity  of  Christ,  without  which  it  cannot  be 
rationally  interpreted. 


(TIL)  Person*  of  Christ.  (Ch.  xvi.) 
I.  Humanity  of  Christ.    In  the  early  church  it  was  necessary  to  establish 
that  Christ  possessed  a  real  human  nature.     Notice  the  following 

1.  Erroneous  opinions.     1.)  The  Gnostics  denied  the  real  existence  of 

the  body  of  Christ  2.)  The  Apollinarian  heresy  rejected  the  exis- 
tence of  a  human  soul  in  our  Lord.  3.)  Among  those  who  held  the 
union  of  the  two  natures  in  Christ,  there  were  various  opinions — 
those  of  the  Nestorians,  Monophisites,  and  Monothelites. 

2.  The  true  sense  of  Scripture  was  given  by  the  Council  of  Chalcedon,  in 

the  fifth  century : — with  whose  formula  the  Athanasian  Creed  agrees, 
and  the  orthodox  church  has  adopted  this  creed.  Certainly,  without 
keeping  in  view  the  completeness  of  each  nature,  we  shall  find  it  im- 
possible, in  many  places,  to  apprehend  the  sense  of  the  Scriptures. 
(Pp.  618,  619.) 


xxxiv  ANALYSIS  OP  AVATSON'S  INSTITUTES. 

IL  The  union  of  the  two  natures  of  Christ  in  one  hypostasis  is  equally  es- 
sential to  the  full  exposition  of  the  Scriptures.  The  following  passages 
illustrate  this : —  -• 

1.  "  The  Word  was  made  flesh." 

2.  "  The  Church  of  God,  purchased  by  hit  own  blood." 
Digression — to  examine  Dr.  P.  Smith's  view  of  orthodox  language. 

3.  "  For  in  him  dwelleth  all  the  fulness  of  the  Godhead  bodily."  Col.  ii,  9. 

4.  "  When  he  had  by  himself  purged  our  sins,"  &c.  Heb.  i,  3. 

These  and  similar  passages  may  be  embraced  under  the  two  following 
classes : — 1.)  Those  which  speak  of  the  efficacy  of  the  sufferings  of 
Christ  for  remission  of  sins.  2.)  Those  which  argue  from  the  compas- 
sion, &c,  of  our  Lord,  to  the  exercise  of  confidence  in  him. 

III.  Errors  as  to  the  person  of  Christ. 

1.  Arianism:  so  called  from  its  author,  Arius,  whose  characteristic  tenet 

was  that  Christ  was  the  first  and  most  exalted  of  creatures. 

2.  Sabellianism :  which,  asserting  the  divinity  of  the  Son  and  the  Spirit, 

and  denying  the  personality  of  both,  stands  equally  opposed  to 
Arianism  and  Trinitarianism. 

3.  Socinianism,  in  which  the  two  former  are  now  nearly  merged.     This 

last  has  been  fully  refuted  by  the  establishment  of  the  Scripture  doc- 
trine of  a  trinity  of  divine  persons  in  the  unity  of  the  Godhead, 
which  involves  a  refutation  of  the  other  two  heresies. 


(IV.)  Personality  and  Deity  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  (Ch.  xvii.; 

I.  As  to  the  manner  of  the  Being  of  the  Holy  Ghost — the  orthodox  doctrine 

is,  that  as  Christ  is  God  by  an  eternal  filiation,  so  the  Spirit  is  God 
by  procession  from  the  Father  and  the  Son.  The  doctrine  of  pro- 
cession rests  on  direct  Scripture  authority,  as  stated  by  Bishop  Pearson. 

1.  "Even  the  Spirit  of  truth,  which  proceedeth  from  the  Father." 

John  xv,  26. 

2.  The  very  expressions  which  are  spoken  of  the  Holy  Spirit  in  relation 

to  the  Father,  are  also  spoken  of  the  same  Spirit  in  relation  to  the 
Son. 

II.  Arius  regarded  the  Spirit  as  created  by  Christ ;  but  afterward  his  fol- 

lowers considered  the  Holy  Ghost  as  the  exerted  energy  of  God,  which 
notion,  with  some  modifications,  is  adopted  by  Socinians. 

m.  Scriptural  argument  for  the  personality  and  deity  of  the  Holy  Ghost, 
(a.)  From  the  frequent  association  in  Scripture  of  a  person,  under  that 
appellation,  with  two  other  persons,  one  of  whom,  "  the  Father,"  is 
by  all  acknowledged  to  be  divine ;  and  the  ascription  to  each,  or  to 
the  three  in  union,  of  the  same  acts,  titles,  authority,  and  worship,  in 
an  equal  degree. 


ORIGINAL  SIN.  xxxv 

1.  Association  of  the  three  persons  in  creative  acts. 

2.  Do.  in  the  preservation  of  all  things. 

3.  Do.  in  the  inspiration  of  the  prophets. 

4.  Do.  as  objects  of  supreme  worship. 

5.  Do.  in  the  form  of  baptism, 
(b.)  Some  other  arguments,  (p  637,)  for 

(1.)  The  personality  of  the  Spirit.  1.)  He  proceeds  from  the  Father 
and  Son,  and  cannot  therefore  be  either.  2.)  Many  Scriptures 
are  absurd  unless  the  Holy  Ghost  be  a  person.  3.)  The  Holy 
Ghost  is  spoken  of  in  many  passages  where  personification  is  im- 
possible. 4.)  The  use  of  masculine  pronouns  and  relatives  in  the 
Greek  of  the  New  Testament,  in  connexion  with  the  neuter  noun 
irvev/ia — Spirit. 

(2.)  The  divinity  of  the  Spirit.  1.)  He  is  the  subject  of  blasphemy 
2.)  He  is  called  God.    3.)  He  is  the  source  of  inspiration. 


II.  DOCTRINES  RELATING  TO  MAN.— (Ch.  xviii-xxix.) 

(A.)— ORIGINAL  SIN. 

L  Man's  primitive  condition.  (Pp.  3-19.) 

H.  Testimony  of  Scripture  as  to  the  fall  of  man.  (Pp.  19-43.) 

IH.  Results  of  the  fall,  to  Adam  and  his  posterity.  (Pp.  43-87.) 

L  Man's  primitive  condition. 

(I.)  Adam  was  made  under  laic,  as  all  his  descendants  are  born  under  law. 

1.  There  is  evidence  of  the  existence  of  a  moral  as  well  as  a  natural 

government  of  the  universe. 

2.  The  law  under  which  all  moral  agents — angels,  devils,  or  men — are 

placed,  there  is  reason  to  believe,  is,  in  its  great  principles,  the  same. 

3.  Each  particular  law  supposes  the  general  one.     Lata  was  not  first  in- 

troduced into  the  world  when  the  law  of  Moses  was  engraven  on  the 
tables  of  stone. 

(H.)  The  history  of  man's  creation  in  brief.  (P.  8.) 

1.  The  manner  of  the  narration  indicates  something  peculiar  and  eminent 

in  the  being  formed.     "And  God  said,  Let  us  make  man  in  our 
image,"  &c. 

2.  The  image  of  God — in  what  did  it  consist  ? 
(1.)  Not  in  the  body. 

(2.)  Not  in  the  dominion  granted  to  man  in  this  lower  world. 
(3.)  Nor  in  any  one  essential  quality : — as  the  evidence  of  Scripture  is 
sufficiently  explicit,  that  it  comprises  what  may  be  lost  and  regained. 
(4.)  But,  theologically  speaking,  we  have 


xxxvi  ANALYSIS   OF  WATSON'S  INSTITUTES. 

(a.)  The  natural  image  of  God — consisting  of  spirituality,  immortality, 

and  intellectual  powers. 
(b.)  The  moral  image  proved  from  the  following  passages  of  Scrip- 
ture:— (1.)  Ecc.vii:  "  God  made  man  upright."   (2.)  Col.  iii,  10. 
(3.)  Eph.  iv,  24.     (4.)  "  And  God  saw  ...    .  and  behold  it 
was  very  good." 
(5.)  As  to  the  degree  of  Adam's  perfection  in  the  image  of  God,  there 
are  two  extreme  opinions.     Without  falling  into  either  of  these, 
we  have  the  following  conclusions : — 

1.  Adam  was  sinless  both  in  act  and  principle. 

2.  He  possessed  the  faculty  of  knowledge,  and  also 

3.  Holiness  and  righteousness,  which  express  not  only  sinlessness, 

but  positive  and  active  virtues. 

3.  Objection  to  the  creation  of  man  in  the  moral  image  of  God,  by  Dr. 

Taylor,  answered. 
(1.)  The  fallacy  of  the  objection  lies  in  confounding  habits  of  holiness 

with  the  principle. 
(2.)  Answer  quoted  from  Wesley. 
(3.)  From  Edwards. 

4.  Final  cause  of  the  creation  of  man — the  display  of  the  glory  of  God,  and 

principally  of  his  moral  perfections. 


H.  The  fall  op  man.  (P.  19.) 

The  Mosaic  account,  (the  garden,  serpent,  &c.,). teaches  of,  (1)  the  existence 
of  an  evil  spirit ;  (2)  the  introduction  of  a  state  of  moral  corruptness 
into  human  nature ;  and  (3)  a  vicarious  atonement  for  sin.  There  are 
three  classes  of  opinions  held  among  the  interpreters  of  this  account 

(I.)  Class.     Those  which  deny  the  literal  sense,  and  regard  the  whole 
narration  as  an  instructive  mythos. 
(A.)  Two  facts  sufficiently  refute  these  notions. 

1.  The  account  of  the  fall  of  the  first  pair  is  a  part  of  a  continuous 

history.  If,  then,  the  account  of  the  fall  may  be  excepted  as 
allegorical,  any  subsequent  portion  of  the  Pentateuch  may  in 
like  manner  be  taken  away. 

2.  The  literal  sense  of  the  history  is  referred  to,  and  reasoned  upon, 

as  such,  in  various  parts  of  Scripture.  (Pp.  22,  23.) 
(B.)   Objections  have  been  started  to  the  literal  and  historical  interpre- 
tation, of  which  the  following  are  specimens  : — 
1.  "It  is  unreasonable  to  suppose  that  the  fruit  of  the  tree  of  life 
could  confer  immortality."    But 
(1.)  Why  could  not  this  tree  be  the  appointed  means  of  preserving 

health  and  life? 
(2.)  Why  may  not  the  eating  of  the  fruit  be  regarded  as  a  sacra- 
mental act  ? 


ORIGINAL  SIN.  xxxvil 

2.  "  How  could  the  fruit  of  the  tree  of  knowledge  have  any  effect 
upon  the  intellectual  powers  ?" 
(1.)  Surely  the  tree  might  be  called  "  the  tree  of  knowledge  of 
good  and  evil,"  because  by  eating  of  its  fruit  man  came  to 
know,  by  sad  experience,  the  value  of  the  good  he  had  for- 
feited, &c. ;  or, 
(2.)  It  was  the  test  of  Adam's  fidelity,  and  hence  the  name  was 
proper. 
8.  Objection  has  been  made  to  the  account  of  the  serpent,  (a.)  That 
it  makes  "  the  invisible  tempter  assume  the  body  of  an  animal." 
Who  can  prove  this  to  be  impossible  ?     (b.)  "  But  the  serpent 
spoke !"     So  did  Balaam's  ass.     (c.)  "  But  Eve  was  not  surpri- 
sed."   Why  should  she  ?  or,  if  she  were,  the  history  need  not 
mention  so  slight  a  matter,    (d.)  "  But  the  serpent  was  unjustly 
sentenced,  if  merely  an  instrument."     The  serpent  certainly 
held  its  rank  at  the  pleasure  of  the  Creator. 
(C)  Tradition  comes  in  to  support  the  literal  sense  of  the  history. 

1 .  The  ancient  Jewish  writers,  Apocrypha,  &c. 

2.  The  various  systems  of  heathen  mythology — Greek,  Egyptian, 

Indian,  Roman,  Gothic,  and  Hindoo. 

(II.)  Class.  Those  who  interpret  the  account  in  part  literally  and  in  part 
allegorically.  (P.  30.)  Sufficiently  answered  by  quotation  from 
Bishop  Horsley. 

(in.)  Class.  Those  who  believe  that  the  history  has,  in  perfect  accord- 
ance with  the  literal  interpretation,  a  mystical  and  higher  sense  than 
the  letter.  This  sentiment,  without  running  into  the  extravagance* 
of  mysticism,  is  the  orthodox  doctrine.  The  history  is  before  us ; — 
but  rightly  to  understand  it,  these  four  points  should  be  kept  in 
view,  viz. : — 

1.  Man  was  in  a  state  of  trial. 

(1.)  This  involved  power  of  obedience  and  disobedience. 

(2.)  That  which  determines  to  the  one  or  the  other,  is  the  will. 

(3.)  Our  first  parents  were  subject  to  temptation  from  intellectual 

pride,  from  sense,  and  from  passion. 
(4.)  To  resist  such  temptation,  prayer,  vigilance,  &c,  were  requisite. 

2.  The  prohibition  of  a  certain  fruit  was  but  one  part  of  the  law  under 

which  man  was  placed. 
(1.)  Distinction  between  positive  and  moral  precepts. 
(2.)  The  moral  reason  for  this  positive  precept — as  indeed  for  pro- 
bably all  others — may  be  easily  discovered. 

3.  The  serpent  was  but  the  instrument  of  the  real  tempter,  who  was  that 

evil  spirit  whose  Scriptural  appellatives  are  the  Devil  and  Satan. 
Existence  and  power  of  this  spirit  clearly  declared  in  Scripture. 

4.  The  curse  of  the  serpent  was  symbolical  of  the  punishment  of  Satan. 


xxxviii  ANALYSIS  OF  WATSON'S  INSTITUTES. 

This  sj'mbolical  interpretation  defended  by  three  considerations. 
(Pp.  39-42.) 

III.  Results  of  the  fall.  (Pp.  43-87.) 

(I.)  To  Adam,  inevitable  death,  after  a  temporary  life  of  severe  labour. 
(Pp.  43-51.) 

1.  Statement  of  opinions  as  to  the  extent  and  application  of  this  penalty, 
(a.)  Pelagian  notion, — Adam  would  have  died  had  he  not  sinned, 
(b.)  Pseudo-Arminian  doctrine  of  Whitby  and  others.  (Pp.  43-45.) 
(c.)  Arminius's  doctrine,  taken  from  his  writings.     With  this  nearly 

agree  the  Remonstrants,  Augsburg  Confession,  Church  of  England, 
French  and  Scottish  churches. 

2.  Import  of  the  term  death,  as  used  in  Scripture.  (P.  48.) 
(a.)  "  Death  came  into  the  world  by  sin." 

(b.)  It  does  not  imply  annihilation. 

(c.)  It  extends  to  the  soul  as  well  as  to  the  body,  thus  embracing  (1.) 
Bodily  death,  i.  e.,  the  separation  of  the  soul  from  the  body.  (2.) 
Spiritual  death,  i.  e.,  the  separation  of  the  soul  from  God.  (3.) 
Eternal  death,  i.  e.,  separation  from  God,  and  a  positive  infliction 
of  his  wrath  in  a  future  state. 
Taylor's  objection  answered  by  Wesley  and  Edwards. 

(II.)  This  sentence  extended  to  Adam's  posterity.     (Pp.  52-61.) 

1.  The  testimony  of  Scripture  explicitly  establishes  a  federal  connexion 

between  Adam  and  his  descendants.     Rom.  v ;  1  Cor.  xv,  22. 

2.  The  imputation  of  Adam's  sin  to  his  posterity,  is  the  result  of  this  con- 

nexion.    Not  mediate — not  immediate — but  the  legal  result  of  sin. 

3.  The  consequences  of  this  imputation  are,  1.)  Death  of  the  body.     2.) 

Spiritual  death.     3.)  Eternal  death. 

4.  Objections  are  raised  against  this  doctrine — of  two  kinds,  viz. : — one 

against  high  Calvinism,  which  we  leave  to  take  care  of  itself;  and 
the  other  against  the  legal  part  of  this  transaction,  without  consider- 
ing, in  connexion  with  it,  the  evangelical  scheme.     The  case  may  be 
considered 
(1.)  With  regard  to  adults.     The  remedial  scheme  offers,  a.)  In  oppo- 
sition to  bodily  death — the  resurrection,    b.)  In  opposition  to  spirit- 
ual death — spiritual  life,     c.)    In  opposition   to  eternal  death — 
eternal  life. 
(2 )  With  regard  to  infants,     a.)  The  benefits  of  Christ's  death  are 
coextensive  with  the  sin  of  Adam,  (Rom.  v,  18 ;)  hence  all  children 
dying  in  infancy  partake  of  the  free  gift,     b.)  Infants  are  not  in- 
deed born  justified ;  nor  are  they  capable  of  that  voluntary  ac- 
ceptance of  the  benefits  of  the  free  gift  which  is  necessary  in  the 
case  of  adults :  but,  on  the  other  hand,  they  cannot  reject  it ;  and 
it  is  by  the  rejection  of  it  that  adults  perish,     c.)  The  process  by 
which  "race  is  communicated  to  infants  is  not  revealed  :  the  ad- 


ORIGINAL  SIN.  xxxix 

ministration  doubtless  differs  from  that  employed  toward  adults. 
d.)  Certain  instrumental  causes  may  be  considered  in  the  case  of 
children,  viz.,  the  intercession  of  Christ ;  ordinances  of  the  church  ; 
prayers  of  parents,  &c. 

(III.)  The  moral  condition  in  which  men  are  actually  born  into  the  world. 

I.  Several  facts  of  experience  are  to  be  accounted  for. 

1.  That  in  all  ages  great  and  general  national  wickedness  has  prevailed. 

2.  The  strength  of  the  tendency  to  this  wickedness,  marked  by  two  cir- 

cumstances:— 1.)  The  greatness  of  the  crimes  to  which  men  have 
abandoned  themselves.  2.)  The  number  of  restraints  against 
which  this  tide  of  evil  has  urged  its  course. 

3.  The  seeds  of  the  vices  may  be  discovered  in  children  in  their  earliest 

years. 

4.  Every  man  is  conscious  of  a  natural  tendency  to  many  evils. 

5.  The  passions,  appetites,  and  inclinations,  make  strong  resistance, 

when  man  determines  to  renounce  his  evil  courses. 

II.  To  account  for  these  facts,  we  derive  from  Scripture  the  hypothesis, — 

that  man  is  by  nature  totally  corrupt  and  degenerate,  and  of  himself 
incapable  of  any  good  thing.     The  following  passages  contain  this 
doctrine  : — 1.)  Gen.  v,  3  :  "Adam  begat  a  son  in  his  own  likeness." 
2.)  Gen.  vi,  5 :  "  Every  imagination,"  &c.     3.)  Gen.  viii,  21  :  "  The 
imagination  of  man's  heail  is  evil  from  his  youth."     4.)  Book  of  Job 
xi,  12;  v,  7;  xiv,  47;  xv,  14.     5.)  Psalm  li,  5;  lviii,  3,4.     6.)  Pro. 
xxii,  15  ;  xxix,  15.     7.)  Romans  iii,  10,  quoted  from  Psalm  xiv.     8.) 
That  class  of  passages  which  speak  of  evil  as  a  distinguishing  mark 
not  of  any  one  man,  but  of  human  nature :  Jeremiah,  &c.     9.)  Our 
Lord's  discourse  with  Nicodemus,  John  iii.     10.)  Argument  in  third 
chapter  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans. 
The  doctrine  of  the  natural  and  universal  corruption  of  man's  nature, 
thus  obtained  from  Scripture,  fully  accounts  for  the  above-mentioned 
five  facts  of  experience.     Let  us  see  how  far  they  can  be  ex- 
plained on 
HI.  The  theory  of  man's  natural  innocence  and  purity.  (P.  74.)     This 
doctrine  refers  these  phenomena  to 

1.  General  bad  example.     But  1.)  This  does  not  account  for  the  intro- 

duction of  wickedness.  2.)  How  could  bad  example  become 
general,  if  men  are  generally  disposed  to  good.  3.)  This  very 
hypothesis  admits  the  power  of  evil  example,  which  is  almost  giving 
up  the  matter  in  dispute.  4.)  This  theory  does  not  account  for 
the  strong  bias  to  evil  in  men,  nor  for  the  vicious  tempers  of  chil- 
dren, nor  for  the  difficulty  of  virtue. 
The  advocates  of  this  doctrine  refer  also  to 

2.  Vicious  education,  to  account  for  these  phenomena.    But  1.)  Where 

did  Cain  get  his  vicious  education  ?  3.)  Why  should  education  be 
generally  bad,  unless  men  are  predisposed  to  evil.     3.)  But,  in 


xl  ANALYSIS   OF  WATSON'S  INSTITUTES. 

fact,  education  in  all  countries  has  in  some  degree  opposed  vice. 
4.)  As  for  the  other  facts,  education  is  placed  upon  the  same  ground 
as  example. 

IV.  Some  take  a  milder  view  of  the  case  than  the  orthodox,  denying  these 
tendencies  to  various  excesses  to  be  sinful,  until  they  are  approved  by 
the  will.  (P.  77.)  But  why  this  universal  compliance  of  the  will  with 
what  is  known  to  be  evil,  unless  there  be.  naturally  a  corrupt  state 
of  the  mind,  which  is  what  we  contend  for.  The  death  of  children 
proves  that  all  men  are  "constituted"  and  treated  as  "sinners." 

V.  Nature  ofonginal  sin. 

1.  A  privation  of  the  image  of  God,  according  to  Arminius. 

2.  No  infusion  of  evil  into  the  nature  of  man  by  God,  but  positive  evil, 

as  the  effect,  is  connected  with  privation  of  the  life  of  God,  as  the 
cause. 

3.  As  to  the  tra7ismission  of  this  corrupt  nature,  the  Scriptural  doctrine 

seems  to  be  that  the  soul  is  ex  traduce]  and  not  by  immediate  creation 
from  God.    This  doctrine  does  not  necessarily  tend  to  materialism. 

4.  It  does  not  follow  from  the  corruption  of  human  nature  that  there 

can  be  nothing  virtuous  among  men  before  regeneration.  (P.  83.) 
But  all  that  is  good  in  its  principle  is  due  to  the  Holy  Spirit, 
whose  influences  are  afforded  to  all,  in  consequence  of  the  atone- 
ment offered  for  all.     The  following  reasons  may  be  assigned  for 
the  apparent  virtues  that  are  noticed  among  unregenerate  men : — 
1.)  The  understanding  of  man  cannot  reject  demonstrated  truth. 
2.)  The  interests  of  men  are  often  connected  with  right  and  wrong. 
3.)  The  seeds  of  sin  need  exciting  circumstances  for  their  full  de- 
velopment.    4.)  All  sins  cannot  show  themselves  in  all  men.     5.) 
Some  men  are  more  powerfully  bent  to  one  vice  :  some  to  another. 
But  all  virtues  grounded  on  principle,  wherever  seen  among  men,  are  to 
be  ascribed  to  the  Holy  Spirit,  which  has  been  vouchsafed  to  "  the 
world,"  through  the  atonement. 

(B.)— REDEMPTION.  (Ch.  xix-xxix.) 
(I.)  Principles  of  redemption.  (Ch.  xix-xxii.) 
I.  Principles  of  God's  moral  government.  (Ch.  xix.) 

The  penalty  of  death  was  not  immediately  executed  in  all  its  extent  upon 
the  first  sinning  pair.     Why  was  it  not  ?     In  order  to  answer  this  ques- 
tion, the  character  of  God,  and  the  principles  of  his  moral  government, 
will  be  briefly  examined. 
(I.)  The  divine  character  is  illustrated  by  the  extent  and  severity  of  the 

punishments  denounced  against  transgression.  (P.  88.) 
(II.)  It  is  more  fully  illustrated  by  the  testimony  of  God  himself  in  the 
Scriptures,  (p.  89,)  where 

1.  The  divine  holiness,  and 

2.  The  divine  justice,  are  abundantly  declared.    Justice  is  either,  1) 


REDEMPTION.  '  xli 

universal,  or  2)  particular, — which  latter  is  commutative,  (respecting 
equals,)  or  distributive,  (which  is  exercised  only  by  governors.)  Of 
the  strictness  and  severity  of  the  distributive  justice  of  God,  the  sen- 
tence of  death  is  sufficient  evidence. 
(HI.)  Connexion  between  the  essential  justice  of  God,  and  such  a  consti- 
tution of  law  and  government.  (P.  91.) 

1.  The  creation  of  free  human  beings  involved  the  possibility  of  evil  voli- 

tions and  acts,  and  consequently  misery. 

2.  To  prevent  these  evils  was  the  end  of  the  divine  government,  the  first 

act  of  which  was  the  publication  of  the  will  or  law  of  God :  the 
second,  to  give  motives  to  obedience,  happiness,  justice,  fear. 

3.  It  was  necessary  to  secure  obedience,  that  the  highest  penalty  should 

be  affixed  to  transgression. 

4.  Admitting  its  necessity,  its  institution  was  demanded  by  1.)  The  holi- 

ness ;  2.)  The  justice ;  and  3.)  The  goodness  of  God. 
{IV.)  Does  the  justice  of  God  oblige  him  to  execute  the  penalty  ?    The 
opponents  of  the  doctrine  of  atonement  deny  this ;  but  we  can  show, 
that 

1.  Sin  cannot  be  forgiven  by  the  mere  prerogative  of  God:  for 

(1.)  God  cannot  give  up  his  right  to  obedience,  without  indifference  to 
moral  rectitude. 

(2.)  Nor  can  the  Deity  givp  up  his  right  to  punish  disobedience,  without 
either  (a)  partiality,  if  pardon  be  granted  to  a  few  ;  or  (b)  the 
abrogation,  in  effect,  of  law,  if  pardon  be  extended  to  aU. 

2.  Nor  does  repentance,  on  the  part  of  the  offender,  place  him  in  a  new- 

relation,  and  thus  render  him  a  fit  object  of  pardon.     Those  who 
hold  this  doctrine,  admit  the  necessity  of  something  which  shall  make 
it  right  as  well  as  merciful  for  God  to  forgive.     But  we  deny  re- 
pentance to  be  that  something ;  for 
(1.)  We  find  no  intimation  in  Scripture  that  the  penalty  of  the  law  is 

not  to  be  executed  in  case  of  repentance. 
(2.)  It  is  not  true  that  repentance  changes  the  legal  relation  of  the 
guilty  to  God,   whom  they  have  offended.     They  are  offenders 
still,  though  penitent. 
(3.)  So  far  from  repentance  producing  this  change  of  relation,  we 
have  proofs  to  the  contrary,  both  from  the  Scriptures  and  the  es- 
tablished course  of  providence. 
(4.)  The  true  nature  of  repentance,  as  stated  in  the  Scriptures>  is 

overlooked  by  those  who  hold  this  doctrine. 
(5.)  (P.  101.)  In  the  gospel,  which  professedly  lays  down  the  means 
by  which  men  are  to  obtain  the  pardon  of  their  sins,  that  pardon 
is  not  connected  with  mere  repentance. 

IT.  Death  of  Christ  propitiatory.  (Ch.  xx.) 

In  tfiis  and  the  two  following  chapters,  we  investigate  that  method  of  love, 
wisdom,  and  justice,  bv  which  a  merciful  God  justifies  the  ungodly : 
Vol.  I.— D. 


xhi  ANALYSIS   OF  WATSON'S  INSTITUTES. 

first,  examining  the  statements  of  the  New  Testament;  secondly,  tho 
sacrifices  of  the  law  ;  and  thirdly,  the  patriarchal  sacrifices : — from  which 
investigation  we  hope  to  show  clearly  the  unity  of  the  three  great  dis- 
pensations of  religion  to  man,  the  patriarchal,  Levitical,  and  Christian, 
in  the  great  principle,  "  that  without  the  shedding  of  blood  there  is  no 
remission."     And  first, 

A.  Proof  from  the  New  Testament.     (Ch.  xx.) 

L  Man's  salvation  is  ascribed  in  the  New  Testament  to  the  death  of  Christ ; 
and 

1.  The  Socinian  considers  the  death  of  Christ  merely  as  the  means  by 

which  repentance  is  produced  in  the  heart  of  man. 

2.  The  Arian  connects  with  it  that  kind  of  merit  which  arises  from  a 

generous  and  benevolent  self-devotion.     But 

II.  The  New  Testament  represents  the  death  of  Christ  as  necessary  to  sal- 
vation ;  not  as  the  meritorious  means,  but  as  the  meritorious  cause. 

1.  The  necessity  of  Christ's  death  follows  the  admission  of  his  divinity. 

2.  The  matter  is  put  beyond  question  by  the  direct  testimony  of  Scrip- 

ture :  "  thus  it  behooved  Christ  to  suffer,  and  to  rise  from  the  dead,"  &e. 

HI.  The  New  Testament  informs  us  that  Christ  died  '■'■for  us,"  that  is,  in 
our  room  and  stead.  (P.  106.) 

1.  All  those  passages  in  which  Christ  is  said  to  have  died  '■'■for"  (ynep  or 

avri)  men,  prove  that  he  died  for  us  not  consequently  but  directly,  as 
a  substitute. 

2.  Those  passages  in  which  he  is  said  to  have  "  borne  the  punishment  due 

to  our  offences,"  prove  the  same  thing. 
Grotius  clearly  proves  that  the  Scriptures  represent  our  sins  as  tho 
impulsive  cause  of  the  death  of  Christ. 

3.  The  passage  in  Isaiah  liii,  "  the  chastisement  of  our  peace  was  upon 

him,"  &c,  is  applied  to  Christ  by  the  apostles. 

4.  The  apostle  Paul— 2  Cor.  v,  21. 

5.  Gal.  iii,  13. 

IV.  Some  passages  of  the  New  Testament  connect,  with  the  death  of  Christ, 

the  words  propitiation,  atonement,  and  reconciliation.  (P.  112.) 
1.  Propitiation. 

(1.)  Definition — to  propitiate  is  to  atone,  to  turn  away  the  wrath  of  an 
offended  person. 

(2.)  The  Socinians,  in  their  improved  version,  admit  that  it  was  "  the 
pacifying  of  an  offended  party ;"  but  insist  that  Christ  is  a  propitia- 
tion, because  "  by  his  gospel  he  brings  sinners  to  repentance,  and 
thus  averts  the  divine  displeasure."  On  this  ground,  Moses  was  a 
propitiation  also. 

(8.)  Socinians  also  deny  the  existence  of  wrath  in  God  : — in  order  to 
show  that  propitiation,  in   a  proper  sense,  cannot  be  taught  ia 


REDEMPTION.  xliii 

Scripture.     But  Scripture  abundantly  asserts  that  "  God  is  angry 
with  the  wicked." 
In  holding  this  Scriptural  doctrine,  we  do  not  assert  the  existence  of 
wrath  as  a  vengeful  passion  in  the  divine  mind :  this  is  one  of 
the  many  caricatures  of  orthodoxy  by  Socinianism. 
2-  Reconciliation,  (p.  117,)  occurs,  Col.  i,  19,  22 ;  Rom.  v,  10,  11  ;  2  Cor. 
v,  18,  19. 

(1.)  The  expressions  "reconciliation,"  "  making  peace,"  imply  a  pre- 
vious state  of  mutual  hostility  between  God  and  man.  This  rela- 
tion is  a  legal  one,  as  that  of  sovereign  and  criminal.  The  term 
enmity,  used  as  it  respects  God,  is  unfortunate ;  but  certainly 
something  more  is  implied  in  reconciliation  than  man's  laying  aside 
his  enmity  to  God.  (P.  118.) 
(2.)  Various  passages  of  Scripture  go  directly  to  prove  this.  (P.  119.) 

Rom.  v,  11 ;  2  Cor.  v,  19 ;  Eph.  ii,  16. 
(3.)   Socinian   objection  to  the  doctrine  of  reconciliation  answered. 
(P.  121.) 

V.  Some  texts  speak  of  redemption  in  connexion  with  the  death  of  Christ, 
e.  g.,  Rom.  iii,  24 ;  Gal.  iii,  13 ;  Eph.  i,  7 ;  1  Pet  i,  18,  19  ;  1  Cor.  vi, 
19,20.  (P.  122.) 
(1.)  The  Socinian  notion  of  a  gratuitous  deliverance  is  refuted  by  the 
very  terms  used  in  the  above-cited  passages:    such  as  ?.vrpo<j,  to 
redeem,  &c. 
(2.)  Tile  moans  by  which  it  has  been  attempted  to  evade  the  force  of 
these  statements  must  be  refuted.     They  are 

1 .  "  That  the  term  redemption  is  sometimes  used  for  simple  deliverance, 

when  no  price  is  supposed  to  be  given."     Answer, 

a.  The  occasional  use  of  the  term  in  an  improper  manner,  cannot  be 

urged  against  its  strict  signification. 

b.  Our  redemption  by  Christ  is  emphatically  spoken  of  in  connexion 

with  the  yvTpoi;  or  redemption  price  ;  but  this  word  is  never 
added  to  the  deliverance  effected  for  the  Israelites  by  Moses. 

2.  u  That  our  interpretation  of  these  passages  would  involve  the  absur- 

dity of  paying  a  price  to  Satan."     Answer, 

a.  The  idea  of  redemption  is  not  to  be  confined  to  the  purchasing 

of  a  captive. 

b.  Nor  does  it  follow,  even  in  that  case,  that  the  price  must  be  paid 

to  him  who  detains  the  captive.  Our  captivity  to  Satan  is  ju- 
dicial, and  satisfaction  is  to  be  made,  not  to  the  jailer,  but  to  him 
whose  law  has  been  violated. 

3.  "  That  our  doctrine  is  inconsistent  with  the  freeness  of  the  grace  of 

God  in  the  forgiveness  of  sins."  (P.  127.)     Answer, 

a.  Dr.  Priestley  himself,  in  requiring  penitence  from  the  sinner,  ad- 

mits that  grace  may  be  free,  while  not  unconditional. 

b.  The  passage  of  St.  Paul  which  Dr.  P.  quotes,  runs  thus :  "  Being 


Xliv  ANALYSIS   OF  WATSON'S  INSTITUTES. 

justified  freely  by  bis  grace,  through  the  redemption  which  is  in 
Christ  Jesus." 
c.  When  sin  is  spoken  of  as  a  debt  freely  remitted,  it  is  clear  that  a 
metaphor  is  employed.  (P.  129.) 

VI.  The  nature  of  the  death  of  Christ  is  still  further  explained  in  the  New 
Testament,  by  the  manner  in  which  it  connects  our  justification  with 

faith  in  the  blood  of  Christ ;  and  both  our  justification  and  the  death  of 
Christ  with  the  "  righteousness  of  God."  Rom.  iii,  24-26. 
(a.)  Thus  the  forgiveness  of  sin  is  not  only  an  act  of  mercy,  but  an  act 

of  justice. 
(b.)  The  steps  of  this  "  demonstration  "  of  the  righteousness  of  God  an* 
easily  to  be  traced  ;  for, 

1.  The  law  is  by  this  means  established  in  its  authority  and  perpetuiti/. 

2.  On  any  other  theory,  there  is  no  manifestation  of  God's  hatred  of 

sin,  commensurate  with  the  intense  holiness  of  the  divine  nature 

3.  The  person  who  suffered  the  penalty  of  the  law  for  us  was  the  Son 

of  God — in  him  divinity  and  humanity  were  united :  and  thus,  M 
"God  spared  not  his  own  Son,"  his  justice  is  declared  to  be  in- 
flexible and  inviolable. 
The  Socinians  object  that  "  the  dignity  of  a  person  adds  nothing  to 
the  estimation  of  his  sufferings."     But  (1,)  the  common  opinion 
of  mankind  in  all  ages  is  directly  against  this;  and  (2,)  the  tes- 
timony of  Scripture  is  explicit  on  this  point. 

4.  Though  all  men  are  brought,  by  the  death  of  Christ,  into  a  salva- 

ble  state,  yet  none  of  them  are  brought  from  under  the  authority 
of  the  moral  law. 

VII.  "  The  satisfaction  made  to  divine  justice,"  is  a  phrase  which,  though 
not  found  in  Scripture,  is  yet  of  theological  value,  and  deserves  to  be 
considered.  (P.  137.) 

(I.)  There  are  two  views  of  satisfaction  among  those  who  hold  the  doctrine 
of  atonement,  viz. : — 

1.  That  the  sufferings  and  death  of  Christ  are,  for  the  dignity  of  his 

nature,  regarded  as  a  full  equivalent  and  adequate  compensation 
for  the  punishment  of  the  personally  guilty  by  death. 

2.  That  Christ  made  satisfaction  for  our  sins,  not  because  his  death  is 

to  be  considered  a  full  equivalent  for  the  remission  of  punishment, 
but  because  his  suffering  in  our  stead  maintained  the  honour  of 
the  divine  law,  and  yet  gave  free  scope  to  the  mercy  of  the  law- 
giver. 
Both  these  are  defective,  but  the  first  may  be  admitted,  with  some 
explanations. 
(II.)  Some  explanatory  observations  then  are  necessary.  (P.  138.) 
1.  The  term  satisfaction  is  taken  from  the  Roman  law,  and  signifies 
the  contentment  of  an  injured  party  by  anything  which  he  may 
choose  to  accept  in  place  of  the  enforcement  of  his  obligation  upon 


REDEMPTION.  xlv 

the  party  offending.  As  a  just  governor,  then,  God  is  satisfied, — 
contented  with  the  atonement  offered  by  the  vicarious  death  of 
his  Son. 

2.  The  effect  produced  upon  the  mind  of  the  lawgiver  is  not  the  satis- 

faction, as  the  Socinians  would  say,  of  a  vengeful  affection. 

3.  Nor  is  the  death  of  Christ  to  be  regarded  merely  as  a  wise  and  fit 

expedient  of  government ;  for  this  may  imply  tliat  it  was  one  of 
many  possible  expedients,  though  the  best.  (P.  139.) 
(III.)  The  Antinomian  perversion  of  these  phrases  needs  to  be  refuted. 

1.  Antinomians  connect  the  satisfaction  of  Christ  with  the  doctrine  of 

the  imputation  of  his  active  righteousness  to  believers;  but,  1.) 
We  have  no  such  office  ascribed  in  Scripture  to  the  active  righteous- 
ness of  Christ.  2.)  This  doctrine  of  imputation  makes  Christ's 
sufferings  superfluous.  3.)  It  leaves  man  without  law,  and  God 
without  dominion.  4.)  This  is  not  satisfaction  in  any  good  sense  : 
it  is  merely  the  performance  of  all  that  the  law  requires  by  one 
person  substituted  for  another. 

2.  The  terms  full  satisfaction  and  equivalent,  are  taken  by  the  Antino- 

mians in  the  sense  of  payment  of  debts  by  a  surety ;  but  we  answer, 
He  who  pays  a  debt  for  another,  does  not  render  an  equivalent, 
but  gives  precisely  what  the  original  obligation  requires. 

3.  The  Antinomian  view  makes  the  justification  of  men  a  matter  of 

right,  not  of  grace.  On  their  view,  we  cannot  answer  the  Socinian 
objection,  that  satisfaction  destroys  the  free  nature  of  an  act  of 
forgiveness. 

VIII.  It  is  sometimes  said  that  we  do  not  know  the  vinculum  between  the 
sufferings  of  Christ  and  the  pardon  of  sin.  (P.  143.)  But  Scripture 
seems  to  give  definite  information  on  this  point,  in  declaring  the  death 
of  Christ  to  be  a  "  demonstration  of  the  righteousness  of  God." 

IX.  Objection  is  made  to  the  justice  of  the  substitution  of  the  innocent  for 
the  guilty.     But, 

1 .  It  has  always  been  considered  a  virtue  to  suffer  for  others  under  cer- 

tain circumstances ;  and  the  justice  of  such  acts  has  never  been 
questioned.     Still, 

2.  It  is  wrong  to  illustrate  this  doctrine  by  analogies  between  the  suffer- 

ings of  Christ  and  the  sufferings  of  persons  on  account  of  the  sins  of 
others.     And, 

3.  The  principle  of  vicarious  punishment  could  not  justly  be  adopted 

by  human  governments  in  any  case  whatever.     But, 

4.  In  regard  to  the  offering  of  Christ, — the  circumstances,  (1)  of  the  will- 

ingness of  the  substitute  to  submit  to  the  penalty,  and  (2)  his  right 
thus  to  dispose  of  himself,  fully  clear  up  the  question  of  justice. 
The  difficulty  of  reconciling  the  sufferings  of  Christ  with  the  divine  jus- 
tice lies  rather  with  the  Socinians  than  with  us.     Ezek.  xviii,  20,  is 
satisfactorily  explained  by  Grotius. 


xlvi  ANALYSIS   OF   WATSON'S  INSTITUTES. 

B.  Proof  from  the  sacrifices  of  the  lata.  (Ch.  xxi.) 

Having  adduced,  from  the  New  Testament,  cogent  proofs  of  the  vicarious 
efficacy  of  Christ's  death,  we  proceed,  by  the  light  of  the  argument 
already  made  good,  to  examine  the  use  made  of  the  sacrificial  terms 
of  the  Old  Testament ;  and  first,  the  sacrifices  of  the  law. 

The  terms  taken  from  the  Jewish  sacrifices,  (such  as  "  Lamb  of  God," 
"  Passover,"  &c.,)  when  used  by  the  writers  of  the  New  Testament, 
would  be  not  only  absurd,  but  criminally  misleading  both  to  Jews  and 
Gentiles,  unless  intended  to  teach  the  sacrificial  character  of  the 
death  of  Christ.  (Pp.  149,  150.) 

It  is  necessary  to  establish  the  expiatory  nature  of  the  Jewish  sacrifices,  and 
their  typical  character,  both  of  which   have   been  questioned.     To 
prove  that 
I.  The  Levitical  sacrifices  were  expiatory,  it  is  only  necessary  to  show 

that  the  eminent  sacrifices  were  such.  (P.  151.) 
The  notion  that  these  sacrifices  were  mere  mulcts  or  fines  is  disproved 

1.  By  the  general  appointment  (Levit.  xvii,  10,  11)  of  the  blood  to  be 

an  atonement  for  the  souls.  (P.  153.) 

2.  By  particular  instances:  e.  g.,  Levit.  v,  15,  16.  (P.  154.) 

3.  By  the  fact,  that  atonement  was  required  by  the  law  to  be  made 

by  sin-offerings  and  burnt-offerings  for  even  bodily  distempers 
and  disorders.  (P.  155.) 

4.  By  the  sacrifices  offered  statedly  for  the  whole  congregation. 

5.  By  the  sacrifice  of  the  passover.  (P.  158.) 

II.  The  Levitical  sacrifices  were  also  types.  (P.  159.) 

A  type  is  a  sign  or  example,  prepared  and  designed  by  God  to  prefigure  some 
future  thing.     St.  Paul  shows  that  the  Levitical  sacrifices  were  such. 

1.  In  his  general  description  of  the  typical  character  of  the  "  church  iu 

the  wilderness." 

2.  In  his  notice  of  the  Levitical  sacrifices  in  particular. 

3.  The  ninth  chapter  of  Hebrews  gives  direct  declarations  of  the  ap- 

pointment and  designation  of  the  tabernacle  service  to  be  a  shadow 
of  good  things  to  come. 

HI.  Sacrificial  allusions  are  employed  in  the  New  Testament  to  describe 

the  nature  and  effect  of  the  death  of  Christ,  not  figuratively,  but  properly. 

(a.)  Illustrated  in  various  passages: — 1.  For  he  hath  "made  him  to  be 

sin  for  us,  who  knew  no  sin."     2.  Ephes.  v,  2  :  "  Christ  loved  us,  and 

gave  himself  for  us,"  &c.     3.  The  whole  argument  of  St.  Paul  in 

the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews.     4.  "  And  almost  all  things  are  by  the 

law  purged  with  blood,"  &c. 

(b.)  Blustrated  by  distinction  between  figurative  and  analogical  language. 

Quotation  from  Veysies'  Bampton  Lectures. 

IV.  As  to  the  objection,  that  the  Jewish  sacrifices  had  no  reference  to  the 
expiation  of  moral  transgression,  we  observe, 


REDEMPTION.  xlvi: 

1.  That  a  distinction  is  to  be  made  between  sacrifices  as  a  part  of  the 

theo-political  law  of  the  Jews,  and  sacrifice  as  a  rite  practised  by 
their  fathers. 

2.  Atonement  was  ordered  to  be  made  for  sins  committed  against  any 

divine  commandment. 

3.  But  if  all  the  sin-offerings  of  the  Levitical  institute  had  respected  legal 

atonement  and  ceremonial  purification,  that  circumstance  would  not 
invalidate  the  true  sacrifice  of  Christ 

C.  From  the  patriarchal  sacrifices.  (Ch.  xxii.) 

Having  shown  that  the  sacrifices  of  the  law  were  expiatory,  we  proceed 
now  to  show  the  same  of  the  Ante-Mosaical  sacrifices.     The  proofs  are, 

I.  The  distribution  of  beasts  into  clean  and  unclean. 

II.  The  prohibition  of  blood  for  food. 

III.  The  sacrifices  of  the  patriarchs  were  those  of  animal  victims,  and  their 
use  was  to  avert  the  displeasure  of  God  from  sinning  men  :  c.  g.,  those 
of  Job,  Noah,  and  Abel.  But  as  this  last  has  given  rise  to  controversy, 
we  shall  consider  more  at  large 

IV.  Abel's  sacrifice.  (P.  173.) 

1.  As  to  the  matter  of  it, — it  was  an  animal  offering:  not  wool  or  milk, 

as  Grotius  and  Le  Clerc  would  have  it,  but  the  "  firstlings  of  hi* 
flock." 

2.  This  animal  offering  was  indicative  of  Abel's  faith,  as  declared  by  the 

apostle,  Hebrews,  chapter  xi. 

3.  But  Davison,  in  his  "  Inquiry,"  asserts  that  the  divine  testimony  was 

not  to  the  "  specific  form  of  Abel's  oblation,  but  to  his  actual  righk  - 
ousness." 
The  objections  to  this  view  of  the  matter  are  many. 

(1.)  It  leaves  out  entirely  all  consideration  of  the  difference  between 
the  sacrifice  of  Abel  and  that  of  Cain. 

(2.)  It  passes  over  Abel's  "faith,"  as  evinced  in  this  transaction. 

(3.)  The  apostle  is  not  speaking  of  the  general  tendency  of  faith  to  in- 
duce a  holy  life,  but  of  faith  as  producing  certain  acts  ;  and  hi* 
reference  is  to  Abel's  faith,  as  expressing  itself  by  his  offering  a 
more  excellent  sacrifice. 

(4.)  St  John's  incidental  allusion  to  Abel's  personal  righteousness  does 
not  in  the  least  affect  the  statement  of  Paul,  who  treated  profes- 
sedly, not  incidentally,  the  subject  And  Genesis  iv,  7,  may  be 
considered  in  two  views :  either,  a-)  to  "do  icell"  may  mean,  to  do 
as  Abel  had  done  ;  or,  b)  the  words  may  be  considered  as  a  decla- 
ration of  the  principles  of  God's  righteous  government  over  men. 

4.  If  then  Abel's  faith  had  an  immediate  connexion  with  his  sacrifice,  the 

question  occurs,  to  what  had  that  faith  respect  ?  (P.  178.)     Let  us  il- 
lustrate the  object  of  the  faith  of  the  elders,  from  Heb.  xi,  and  then 


ilviii  ANALYSIS  OF  WATSON'S  INSTITUTES. 

ascertain  the  object  of  Abel's  faith  also,  from  the  acts  in  which  it  im- 
bodied  itself.    In  this  chapter,  then, 
(1.)  Faith  is  taken  in  the  sense  of  affiance  in  God;  and  supposes  some 
promise  or  revelation  on  his  part,  as  the  warrant  for  every  act  of 
affiance, — as  in  the  cases  of  Enoch,  Noah,  Abraham,  &c. 
(2.)  This  revelation  was  antecedent  to  the  faith ;  but  the  acts  and  the 
revelation  had  a  natural  and  striking  conformity  to  each  other:  e.  g., 
Noah,  &c.     Our  inference,  then,  as  to  Abel's  sacrifice,  is,  that  it 
was  not  eucharistic  merely,  but  an  act  of  faith,  having  respect 
to  a  previous  and  appropriate  revelation.     The  conclusion  im- 
bodied  in  the  words  of  Archbishop  Magee  is  warranted  by  the 
argument. 
(3.)  But  it  may  be  asked,  What  evidence  have  we  from  Scripture  that 
such  an  antecedent  revelation  was  made  ?  (P.  182.)     "We  have 
(a.)  The  necessary  inferences  from  the  circumstances  of  the  transac- 
tion, which,  combined  with  the  apostle's  interpretation  of  them, 
enable  us  sufficiently  to  defend  this  ground.     The  text  which 
may  be  wanting  in  the  Old  Testament  is  often  supplied  by  the 
inspired  comment  in  the  New :  e.  g.,  the  manna,  the  rock,  &e. 
.     .     .  If  it  be  argued  that  such  types  were  not  understood,  as 
such,  by  the  persons  among  whom  they  were  first  instituted,  the 
answer  is, — 1.  Either  they  were  in  some  degree  revealed  to  such 
as  prayed  for  light,  or  we  must  conclude  that  the  whole  system 
of  types  was  without  edification  to  the  Jews,  and  instructive  only 
to  us.     2.  We  have,  in  Heb.  xi,  in  the  case  of  Abraham,  a  direct 
proof  of  a  distinct  revelation,  which  is  nowhere  recorded  as  such 
in  the  Mosaic  history, 
(b.)  Besides  these  inferences,  however  satisfactory,  we  have  an  ac- 
count, though  brief,  of  such  revelation.    (1.)  The  brevity  of  the 
account  in  the  Mosaic  history,  is  doubtless  not  without  good 
reason ;  and  (2,)  brief  as  it  is,  we  can  easily  collect,  from  the 
early  part  of  Genesis,  no  unimportant  information  in  regard  to 
primitive  theology.     (3.)  It  is  in  regard  to  the  first  promise  that 
we  join  issue  with  Mr.  Davison;  (p.  188;)  believing  that  his 
view  of  it  {Inquiry,  &c.)  contains,  with  some  truth,  much  error. 
For,  a.)  It  is  assumed,  contrary  to  evidence,  that  the  Book  of 
Genesis  is  a  complete  history  of  the  religious  opinions  of  the 
patriarchs ;  and  he  would  have  the  promise  interpreted  by  them 
so  as  to  convey  only  a  general  indistinct  impression  of  a  deliverer, 
and  that  the  doctrines  of  the  divinity,  incarnation,  &c,  of  that 
deliverer  were  not  in  any  way  to  be  apprehended  in  this  promise. 
Let  us  see,  then,  whether  the  promise,  "  interpreted  by  itself," 
must  not  have  led  the  patriarchs  many  steps  at  least  toward 
these  doctrines,     b.)  The  divine  nature    of  the  promised  Re- 
deemer, we  are  told,  was  a  separate  revelation.  (P.  190.)     But 
surely,  the  work  assigned  to  him — the  blessings  he  was  to  pro- 


♦   - 

REDEMPTION.  ilix 

cure — the  power  that  he  was  to  exercise,  according  to  the  pro- 
mise,— were  all  indications  of  a  nature  superior  to  humanity, 
and  to  the  angels,     c.)  The  doctrine  of  the  incarnation  was  con- 
tained also  in  the  promise  :  this  restorer  was  to  be  of  "  the  seed 
of  the  woman."   (P.  191.)     d.)  So  of  the  doctrine  of  vicarious 
sufferings :  "  the  heel  of  the   seed  of  the  woman  was    to  be 
bruised"  &c.     (P.  192.) 
(4.)  It  is  urged  by  Mr.  Davison,  that  the  faith  spoken  of  in  Hebrews  xi, 
had  for  its  simple  object,  that  "  God  is  the  rewardcr  of  such  as 
diligently  seek  him."     But, 

(a.)  Though  this  is  supposed  as  the  groundwork  of  every  act  of  faith, 
yet  the  special  acts  recorded  have  each  their  special  object ;  and, 

(b.)  This  notion  could  not  be  at  all  apposite  to  the  purpose  for 
which  this  recital  of  the  faith  of  the  elders  was  addressed  to  the 
Hebrews.  Two  views  may  be  given  of  this  recital : — 1.  That 
the  apostle  adduced  this  list  of  worthies  as  examples  of  a  steady 
faith  in  all  that  God  had  then  revealed  to  man,  and  its  happy 
consequences.  2.  That  he  brought  them  up  to  prove  that  all 
the  "elders"  had  faith  in  the  Christ  to  come.  Nor  is  this 
stronger  view  difficult  to  be  made  out,  as  we  may  trace  in  the 
cases  of  Abel,  Enoch,  Noah,  Abraham,  Isaac,  Jacob,  &c,  a 
respect  more  or  less  immediate,  to  the  leading  object  of  all  faith, 
the  Messiah  himself. 
Enough  has  been  said  to  prove  that  the  sacrifice  of  Abel  was  expiatory,  and 
that  it  conformed,  as  an  act  of  faith,  to  some  anterior  revelation. 

V.  A  divine  origin  must  be  ascribed  to  sacrifice. 

1.  The  evidence  of  Scripture  is  of  sufficient  clearness  to  establish  the 

divine  origin  of  the  antediluvian  sacrifices ;  but, 

2.  The  argument  drawn  from  the  natural  incongruity  of  sacrificial  rites 

ought  not  to  be  overlooked  :  which  is  strong  even  as  to  the  fruits  of 
the  earth,  (the  offering  of  which  cannot  be  shown  to  originate  either 
in  reason  or  in  sentiment,)  (pp.  202-204,)  and  still  stronger  as  to 
animal  oblations.  (P.  205.) 

The  divine  institution  of  expiatory  sacrifice  being  thus  carried  up  to  the 
first  ages,  we  perceive  the  unity  of  the  three  great  dispensations  of  religion, 
the  Patriarchal,  the  Levitical,  and  the  Christian,  in  the  great  prin- 
ciple, "  that  without  the  shedding  of  blood  there  is  no  remission." 

(II.)  Benefits  of  the  atonement.  (Ch.  xxiii-xxix.) 

A.  Justification.  (Ch.  xxiii.) 
Preliminary.  All  natural  and  spiritual  good  must  be  included  among  the 
benefits  derived  to  man  from  the  atonement ;  but  we  shall  now  treat 
particularly  of  those  which  constitute  what  is  called  in  Scripture  man's 

SALVATION. 


ANALYSIS   OF  WATSON'S  INSTITUTES. 

The  fruits  of  the  death  and  intei-cession  of  Christ  are — 

1.  To  render  it  consistent  with  a  righteous  government  to  forgive  sin; 

2.  To  call  forth  the  active  exercise  of  the  love  of  God  to  man,  which  dis- 

plays itself 
(1.)  In  the  variety  of  the  divine  dispensations. 

(2.)  In  the  revelation  of  the  divine  will,  and  declaration  of  God's  pur- 
poses of  grace. 
(3.)  In  the  institution  of  the  Christian  ministry. 
(4.)  In  the  influences  of  the  Holy  Spirit. 

The  act  of  mercy  by  which  man  is  reconciled  to  God,  is  called  in  the  Scrip- 
tures, JUSTIFICATION*. 

I.  Statement  of  the  Scriptural  doctrine. 

1.  Justification,  the  remission  of  sin,  the  non-imputation  of  sin,  and  the 

imputation  of  righteousness,  are  phrases  of  the  same  import:  of 
which  the  following  passages  are  proof: — Luke  xviii,  13,  14;  Acts 
xiii,  38,  39;  Rom.  iii,  25,  26;  iv,  4,  8. 

2.  The  importance  of  maintaining  this  simple  view  of  justification, — viz.. 

that  it  is  the  remission  of  sins, — will  appear  from  the  following  con- 
siderations : — 
(1 .)  We  are  taught  that  pardon  of  sin  is  not  an  act  of  prerogative,  done 

above  law ;  but  a  judicial  process,  done  consistently  with  law. 
(2.)  That  justification  has  respect  to  particular  individuals. 
(3.)  Justification  being  a  sentence  of  pardon,  the  Antinomian  notion 

of  eternal  justification  becomes  a  manifest  absurdity. 
(4.)  We  are  guarded,  by  this  view  of  justification,  against  the  notion  that 

it  is  an  act  of  God  by  winch  roe  are  made  actually  just  and  righteous. 
(5.)  No  ground  is  afforded  for  the  notion  that  justification  imports  the 

imputation  to  us  of  the  active  and  passive  righteousness  of  Christ, 

so  as  to  make  us  both  positively  and  relatively  righteous. 

II.  Doctrine  of  imputation.  (Pp.  215-213.) 

There  are  three  opinions  : — 

(I.)  The  high  Calvinistic,  or  Antinomian  scheme,  which  is,  that "  Christ's 
active  righteousness  is  imputed  unto  us,  as  ours."  In  answer  to  this 
we  say, 

1.  It  is  nowhere  stated  in  Scripture. 

2.  The  notion  here  attached  to  Christ's  representing  us,  is  wholly  gra- 

tuitous. 

3.  There  is  no  weight  in  the  argument,  that  "  as  our  sins  were  ac- 

counted his,  so  his  righteousness  was  accounted  ours;"  for  our 
sins  were  never  so  accounted  Christ's,  as  that  he  did  them. 

4.  The  doctrine  involves  a  fiction  and  impossibility  inconsistent  with 

the  divine  attributes. 

5.  The  acts  of  Christ  were  of  a  loftier  character  than  can  be  supposed 

capable  of  being  the  acts  of  mere  creatures. 


REDEMPTION.  U 

6.  Finally,  and  fatally,  this  doctrine  shifts  the  meritorious  cause  of 
man's  justification  from  Christ's  "  obedience  unto  death,"  to  Christ's 
active  obedience  to  the  precepts  of  the  law.  Quotations  are  made 
in  confirmation  from  Piscator  and  Goodwin.  (Pp.  218-220.) 

(II.)  The  opinion  of  Calvin  himself  and  many  of  his  followers,  adopted 
also  by  some  Arminians.  It  differs  from  the  first  in  not  separating 
the  active  from  the  passive  righteousness  of  Christ ;  for  such  a  dis- 
tinction would  have  been  inconsistent  with  Calvin's  notion,  that  jus- 
tification is  simply  the  remission  of  sins.  (Pp.  221-223.) 

This  view  is  adopted,  with  certain  modifications,  by  Arminians  and  Wesley. 
(Pp.  223,  224.) 

But  there  is  a  manifest  difference,  (pp.  225-233,)  which  arises  from  the 
different  senses  in  which  the  word  imputation  is  used :  the  Arminian 
employing  it  in  the  sense  of  accounting  to  the  believer  the  benefit 
of  Christ's  righteousness :  the  Calvinist,  in  the  sense  of  reckoning  the 
righteousness  of  Christ  as  ours.  A  slight  examination  of  the  follow- 
ing passages  will  show  that  this  notion  has  no  foundation  in  Scrip- 
ture : — Psalm  xxxii,  1 ;  Jer.  xxiii,  6;  Isa.  xlv,  24  ;  Rom.  iii,  21,  22  ; 
1  Cor.  i,  30  ;  2  Cor.  v,  21  ;  Rom.  v,  18,  19.  In  connexion  with  this 
last  text,  it  is  sometimes  attempted  to  be  shown  that  as  Adam's  sin  is 
imputed  to  his  posterity,  so  Christ's  obedience  is  imputed  unto  those 
that  are  saved;  but  {Goodwin  on  Justification)  1.)  The  Scripture  no- 
where affirms  either  the  imputation  of  Adam's  sin  to  his  posterity,  or 
of  the  righteousness  of  Christ  to  those  that  believe.  2.)  To  impute 
sin,  in  Scripture  phrase,  is  to  charge  the  guilt  of  sin  upon  a  man, 
with  a  purpose  to  punish  him  for  it.  And  3.)  As  to  the  imputation 
of  Adam's  sin  to  his  posterity, — if  by  it  is  meant  simply  that  the  guilt 
of  Adam's  sin  is  charged  upon  his  whole  posterity,  let  it  pass  ;  but  if 
the  meaning  be  that  all  Adam's  posterity  are  made,  by  this  imputa- 
tion, formally  sinners,  then  the  Scriptures  do  not  justify  it. 

(III.)  The  imputation  of  faith  for  righteousness.  (P.  234.) 
(a.)  Proof  of  this  doctrine. 

1.  It  is  expressly  taught  in  Scripture,  Romans  iv,  3-24,  etc. ;  nor  is 

faith  used  in  these  passages  by  metonymy  for  the  object  of  faith, 
that  is,  the  righteousness  of  Christ 

2.  The  testimony  of  the  church  to  this  doctrine  has  been  uniform 

from  the  earliest  ages — Tertullian,  Origen,  Justin  Martyr,  &o. 

— down  to  the  sixteenth  century.  (Pp.  236-239.) 
(b.)  Explanation  of  the  terms  of  the  proposition,  that  "  faith  is  imputed 
for  righteousness."  (Pp.  239-242.) 
(1.)  Righteousness.     To  be  accounted  righteous,  is,  in  the  style  of  the 

apostle  Paul,  to  be  justified,   where  there  has  been  personal 

guilt. 
(2.)  Faith.     It  is  not  faith  generally  considered,  that  is  imputed  to 

us  for  righteousness,  but  faith  (trust)  in  an  atonement  offered  by 

another  in  our  behalf. 


i  ANALYSIS   OF  WATSON'S  INSTITUTES. 

(3.)  Imputation.  The  non-imputation  of  sin  to  a  sinner  is  expressly 
called,  "  the  imputation  of  righteousness  without  works ;"  the  im- 
putation of  righteousness  is,  then,  the  non-punishment  or  par- 
don of  sin ;  and  by  imputing  faith  for  righteousness,  the  apostle 
means  precisely  the  same  thing, 
(c.)  The  objections  to  the  doctrine  of  the  imputation  of  faith  for  righte- 
ousness admit  of  easy  answer. 

(1.)  The  Papists  err  in  taking  the  term  justification  to  signify  the 
making  men  morally  just. 

(2.)  A  second  objection  is,  that  if  believing  is  imputed  for  righteous- 
ness, then  justification  is  by  works,  or  by  somewhat  in  our- 
selves. In  this  objection,  the  term  works  is  used  in  an  equi- 
vocal sense. 

(3.)  A  third  objection  is,  that  this  doctrine  gives  occasion  to  boasting. 
But  1.)  This  objection  lies  with  equal  strength  against  the  doc- 
trine of  imputed  righteousness.  2.)  The  faith  itself  is  the  gift 
of  God.  3.)  The  blessings  which  follow  faith  are  given  in 
respect  to  the  death  of  Christ.  4.)  Paul  says  that  boasting  is  ex- 
cluded by  the  law  of  faith. 

III.  The  nature  of  justifying  faith:   and  its  connexion  with  justification. 
(Pp.  243-253.) 

1.  Faith  is,  1)  assent;  2)  confidence;  and  this  faith  is  the  condition  to 

which  the  promise  of  God  annexes  justification. 

2.  Justification  by  faith  alone  is  clearly  the  doctrine  of  Scripture.     Some 

suppose  this  doctrine  to  be  a  peculiarity  of  Calvinism ;  but  it  has 
been  maintained  by  various  Arminian  writers,  and  by  none  with 
more  earnestness  and  vigour  than  by  Mr.  Wesley.  (Pp.  246-248.) 
8.  The  general  objection  to  this  doctrine  is,  that  it  is  unfavourable  to 
morality.     The  proper  answer  to  this  old  objection  is,  that  although 
we  are  justified  by  faith  alone,  the  faith  by  which  we  are  justified  is 
not  alone  in  the  heart  which  exercises  it :  "  faith  is  sola,  yet  not  soli- 
taria."     Some  colour  is  given  to  this  objection  by  the  Calvinistic 
view  of  final  perseverance,  which  we  disavow. 
4.  Various  errors  have  arisen  from  unnecessary  attempts  to  guard  this 
doctrine.  (P.  250.) 
(1.)  The  Romish  Church  confounds  justification  and  sanctification. 
(2.)  Another  opinion  is,  that  justifying  faith  includes  works  of  evan- 
gelical obedience, 
(a.)  The  Scriptures  put  a  plain  distinction  between  faith  and  works, 
(b.)  It  is  not  probable  that  Christ  and  his  apostles  meant  more  by 
this  word  than  its  fixed  and  usual  import. 
(3.)  A  third  notion, — that  faith  apprehends  the  merits  of  Christ,  to 
make  up  for  the  deficiency  of  our  imperfect  obedience, — is  suffi- 
ciently refuted  by  the   fact,  that  no  intimation  of  it  is  given  in 
Scripture. 


REDEMPTION.  liii 

(4.)  The  last  error  referred  to  is  that  which  represents  faith  as,  per  se, 
the  necessary  root  of  obedience.  Perhaps  those  who  use  this  lan- 
guage do  not  generally  intend  to  say  all  that  it  conveys. 

IV.  A  few  theories  on  the  subject  of  justification  remain  to  be  stated  and 
examined.     (Pp.  253-266.) 

(1.)  The  doctrine  held  by  Bishop  Taylor,  Archbishop  Tillotson,  and 
others,  that  "  regeneration  is  necessary  to  justification,"  is  an  error 
whose  source  appears  to  be  two-fold  :  (a)  from  a  loose  notion  of  the 
Scriptural  doctrine  of  regeneration ;  and  (b)  from  confounding  the 
change  which  repentance  implies,  with  regeneration  itself. 
(2.)  Another  theory  is  that  propounded  by  Bishop  Bull,  in  his  Harmonia 
Apostolica,  which  has  taken  deep  root  in  the  English  Church :  the 
doctrine  being,  that  justification  is  by  works ; — those  works  being 
such  as  proceed  from  faith,  are  done  by  the  assistance  of  the  Spirit, 
and  are  not  meritorious.  Instead  of  reconciling  St.  James  to  St. 
Paul,  Bishop  Bull  takes  the  unusual  course  of  reconciling  St.  Paul 
to  St.  James :  but 
(a.)  St.  Paul  treats  the  doctrine  of  justification  professedly  ;  St.  James 

incidentally. 
(b.)  The  two  apostles  are  not  addressing  themselves  to  persons  in  the 
same  circumstances,  and  hence  do  not  engage  in  the  same  argu- 
ment, 
(c.)  St.  Paul  and  St  James  do  not  use  the  term  justification  in  the 
same  sense.     Lastly,  the  two  apostles  agree  with  each  other  upon 
the  subject  of  faith  and  works. 
(3.)  A  third  theory  is  maintained  by  some  of  the  leading  divines  of  the 
English  Church  :  which  is,  that  men  are  justified  by  faith  only,  but 
that  faith  is  mere  assent  to  the  truth  of  the  gospel.     The  error  of  this 
scheme  consists  in  the  partial  view  which  is  taken  of  the  nature  of 
justifying  faith. 
(4.)  A  fourth  theory  defers  justification  to  the  last  day.     In  answer  to 
this,  we  say, 
a.)  It  is  not  essential  to  pardon,  that  all  its  consequences  should  be  im- 

mcdiately  removed, 
b.)  Acts  of  private  and  personal  judgment  are  in  no  sense  contrary  to  a 

general  judgment, 
c.)  Justification  now,  and  at  the  last  day,  are  not  the  same : — a.)  They 
are  not  the  same  act.     b.)  They  do  not  proceed  upon  the  same 
principle. 
(5.)  The  last  theory  is  that  of  collective  justification,  proposed  by  Dr. 
Taylor,  of  Norwich :  which  only  needs  to  be  stated,  not  refuted. 

B.  Concomitants  of  justification.  (Ch.  xxiv.) 

L  Regeneration  is  a  change  wrought  in  man  by  the  Hoi)'  Spirit,  by  which 


liv  ANALYSIS   OF  WATSON'S  INSTITUTES. 

the  dominion  of  sin  over  him  is  broken,  so  that  with  free  choice  of  will 
he  serves  God. 

1.  Repentance  is  not  regeneration,  but  precedes  it. 

2.  Regeneration  is  not  justification,  but  always  accompanies  it.     Which 

may  be  proved 
(1.)  From  the  nature  of  justification  itself. 
(2.)  From  Scripture  :  "  If  any  man  be  in  Christ,  he  is  a  new  creature." 

II.  Adoption  is  that  act  by  which  we  who  were  enemies  are  made  the  sons 
of  God  and  heirs  of  his  eternal  glory ;  and  is  that  state  to  which 
belongs  freedom  from  a  servile  spirit,  &c.  .  .  .  with  the  Spirit  of 
adoption,  or  the  witness  of  the  Spirit,  by  which  means  only  we  can 
know  that  the  privileges  of  adoption  are  ours.  The  doctrine  of  the 
witness  of  the  Spirit  is  clearly  taught  in  the  Epistles :  it  is  sometimes 
called  assurance,  but  as  this  phrase  has  been  abused,  it  should  perhaps 
be  cautiously  employed. 

(1.)  There  are  four  opinions  on  the  subject  of  this  testimony  of  the  Spirit. 

1.  That  it  is  twofold  : — 1.)  A  rfiratf  testimony  of  the  Spirit.     2.)  An  in- 

direct testimony,  arising  from  the  work  of  the  Spirit  in  the  heart. 

2.  That  it  is  twofold,  also  : — 1.)  The  fruits  of  the  Spirit  in  the  heart  of  the 

believer.  2.)  The  consciousness,  on  the  part  of  the  believer,  of  pos- 
sessing faith. 

3.  That  there  is  but  one  witness,  the  Holy  Spirit,  acting  concurrently 

with  our  own  spirits. 

4.  That  there  is  a  direct  witness,  which  is  the  special  privilege  of  a  few 

favoured  persons. 
(2.)  Observations  on  these  four  opinions.  (Pp.  273-280.) 

1.  All   sober  divines  allow  that  Christians  may  attain  comfortable  per- 

suasions of  the  divine  favour. 

2.  By  those  who  admit  justification,  it  must  be  admitted  that  either  this 

act  of  mercy  must  be  kept  secret  from  man,  or  there  must  be  some 
means  of  his  knowing  it :  and  if  the  former,  there  can  be  no  comfort- 
able persuasion,  &c;  but,  on  the  contrary,  Scripture  declares  that 
the  justified  "  rejoice." 

3.  If  the  Christian,  then,  may  know  that  he  is  forgiven,  how  is  this  know- 

ledge to  be  attained  ?  The  twofold  testimony  of  the  Spirit  and  heart 
declares  it.  Romans  viii,  16. 

4.  But  does  the  Holy  Spirit  give  his  testimony  directly  to  the  mind,  or 

mediately  by  our  own  spirits,  as  Bishop  Bull  and  Mr.  Scott  affirm '? 
To  the  latter  doctrine  we  object, — that  the  witness  is  still  that  of  our 
own  spirit;  and  that  but  one  witness  is  allowed,  while  St.  Paul  speaks 
of  two. 

5.  Neither  the  consciousness  of  genuine  repentance,  nor  that  of  faith,  is 

consciousness  of  adoption ;  and  if  nothing  more  be  afforded,  the  evi- 
dence of  forgiveness  is  only  that  of  mere  inference. 

6.  "  But  are  not  the  fruits  of  the  Spirit,  love,  joy,  peace,  &c,  sufficient 


EXTENT   OF  THE   ATONEMENT.  IV 

proof  of  our  adoption,  without  a  more  direct  testimony  ?"  Nay : 
these  very  fruits  (at  least  love,  joy,  and  peace,  -which  cannot  be 
separated  from  the  others)  presuppose  not  only  a  pardon,  but  a 
clear  persuasion  of  that  pardon. 

The  witness  of  the  Spirit  is  direct,  then,  and  not  mediate;  nor  is  this  a  new 
doctrine,  as  may  be  easily  shown  by  quotations  from  Luther,  Hooper,  Andrew, 
Usher,  Hooker,  &c.  The  second  testimony  is  that  of  our  own  spirits,  not  to 
the  fact  of  our  adoption  directly,  but  to  the  fact  that  we  have,  in  truth,  re- 
ceived the  Spirit  of  adoption,  and  that  we  are  under  no  delusive  impressions. 


(C.)— ON  THE  EXTENT  OF  THE  ATONEMENT. 
(Ch.  xxv-xxviii.) 

The  Calvinistic  controversy  forms  a  clear  case  of  appeal  to  the  Scriptures, 
by  whose  light  we  propose  to  examine  it.  In  regard  to  the  extent  of 
the  atonement, 

I.  Our  proposition  is,  that  Jesus  Christ  did  so  die  for  all  men,  as  to  make  sal- 

vation attainable  by  all  men,  (pp.  285-288,)  and  we  prove  it  by 
1.  Passages  which  expressly  declare  the  doctrine. 

(a.)  Those  which  say  that  Christ  died  "for  all  men,"  and  speak  of  his 
death  as  an  atonement  for  the  sins  of  the  whole  world. 

(b.)  Those  which  attribute  an  equal  extent  to  the  death  of  Christ,  as  to 
the  effects  of  the  fall. 
S.  Passages  which  necessarily  imply  the  doctrine,  viz. : — 

(a.)  Those  which  declare  that  Christ  died,  not  only  for  those  that  are 
saved,  but  for  those  who  do  or  may  perish. 

(b.)  Those  which  make  it  the  duty  of  men  to  believe  the  gospel ;  and 
place  them  under  guilt,  and  the  penalty  of  death,  for  rejecting  it. 

(c.)  Those  in  which  men's  failure  to  obtain  salvation  is  placed  to  the  ac- 
count of  their  own  opposing  wills,  and  made  wholly  their  own  fault. 

II.  We  have  to  consider  what  our  opponents  have  to  urge  against  these  plain 

statements  of  Scripture.    In  the  first  place,  they  have  no  text  whatever 
to  adduce   which  declares  that  Christ  did  not  die  for  the  salvation  of 
all,  as  literally  as  those  which  declare  that  he  did  so  die.     They  merely 
attempt  to  explain  away  the  force  of  the  passages  we  have  adduced. 
Thus — 
1.  To  our  first  class  of  texts  they  object  that  the  terms,  "  all  men"  and  "  the 
tcorld,"  are  sometimes  used  in  Scripture  in  a  limited  sense.     This  may 
be  granted  ;  but  the  true  question  yet  remains,  whether  in  the  above- 
cited  passages  they  can  be  understood  except  in  the  largest  sense.    We 
deny  this, 
(1.)  Because  the  universal  sense  of  the  terms  used  is  confirmed  either 
by  the  context  of  the  passages  in  which  they  occur,  or  by  other 
Scriptures. 


lvi  ANALYSIS   OF  WATSON'S  INSTITUTES. 

(2.)  Nor  can  the  phrases  "  the  world"  &c,  be  paraphrased  as  "  the  world 
of  the  elect ;"  for 

a.)  The  elect  are  in  Scripture  distinguished  from  the  world. 

b.)  The  common  division  of  mankind  in  the  New  Testament,  is  into 
only  two  parts,  viz.,  the  disciples  of  Christ,  and  "  the  world." 

c.)  When  the  redemption  is  spoken  of,  it  often  includes  both  those 
who  had  been  chosen  out  of  the  world,  and  those  who  remained 
still  of  the  world. 

d.)  In  the  general  commission,  "  Go  ye  into  all  the  world,"  the  expres- 
sion "  into"  has  its  fullest  latitude  of  meaning. 

e.)  This  restrictive  interpretation  gives  gross  absurdity  to  several  pas- 
sages of  Scripture.     John  iii,  16-18.     (Pp.  291,  292.) 

1'.  To  our  second  class  of  texts — those  which  imply  the  unrestricted  extent 

of  Christ's  death — certain  qualifying  answers  are  given.    (Pp.  293- 

306.)     Thus— 
(1.)  As  to  those  which  speak  of  Christ  having  died  for  them  that  perish. 

a.)  "  Destroy  not  him,"  &c.  Rom.  xiv,  15.  Poole's  paraphrase  on  this 
text,  "  for  whom,  in  the  judgment  of  charity,  we  may  suppose 
Christ  died,"  completely  counteracts  the  argument  of  the  apostle. 
Scott,  also,  by  explaining  this  as  a  "  caution  against  doing  anything 
which  has  a  tendency  to  destroy,"  takes  away,  completely,  the  mo- 
tive on  which  the  admonition  is  grounded. 

b.)  "  Denying  the  Lord  that  bought  them,"  &e.  2  Peter  ii,  1.  The  in- 
terpretations of  Scott  and  Poole  are  evasions  of  the  force  of  the 
text,  which  is,  that  their  offence  was  aggravated  by  the  fact  of 
Christ  having  bought  them. 

c.)  The  case  of  the  apostates,  Heb.  vi,  4-8,  and  x,  26-31.  Calvinists 
deny  that  the  apostates  referred  to  were  ever  true  believers,  or 
capable  of  becoming  such.     But, 

1.  Paul  did  not  hold  out  that  to  the  Hebrews  as  a  terror  which  he 

knew  to  be  impossible. 

2.  If  these  apostates  never  were  believers,  they  could  not  be  admo- 

nitory examples. 

3.  To  represent  their  case  as  a  "  falling  away  " — if  it  had  never  been 

hopeful — was  an  absurdity  of  which  Paul  would  not  be  guilty. 

4.  But  what  the  apostle  affirms  of  their  previous  state,  clearly  shows 

that  it  had  been  a  state  of  salvation. 

5.  The  Calvinistic  interpretations  are  below  the  force  of  the  term*! 

employed ;  and  they  are  above  the  character  of  reprobates. 
(2.)  As  to  those  which  make  it  the  duty  of  men  to  believe  the  gospel, 
and  threaten  them  with  punishment  for  not  believing, — the  Calvin- 
istic reply  is,  that  it  is  the  duty  of  all  men  to  believe  the  gospel, 
whether  they  are  interested  in  the  death  of  Christ  or  not ;  and  that 
they  are  guilty  and  deserving  of  punishment  for  not  believing.  (P. 
301.)     But  if  Christ  died  not  for  all  such  persons,  we  think  it  plain 


,  EXTENT   OF  THE   ATONEMENT,  lvji 

that  it  cannot  be  their  duty  to  believe  the  gospel ;  and  to  settle  this 
point,  we  must  determine  what  is  meant  by  believing  the  gospel. 
The  faith  which  the  gospel  requires  of  all,  is,  "  trust  in  our  Lord 
Jesus  Christ:"  true  faith,  then,  and  not  merely  assent,  is  implied  in 
believing  the  gospel.  But  of  those  for  whom  Christ  did  not  die,  such 
faith  cannot  be  required ;  for, 

1.  It  is  impossible. 

2.  God  could  not  command  what  he  never  intended. 

3.  What  all  are  bound  to  believe  in,  is  true. 

(3.)  As  to  the  last  class  of  texts,  viz.,  those  which  impute  the  blame  and 
fault  of  their  non-salvation  to  men  themselves,  the  common  reply  is, 
that  if  men  willed  to  come  to  Christ,  they  would  have  life ;  (p. 
303;)  but, 

1.  Put  the  question  to  the  non-elect;  and  either  it  is  possible  for  them- 

to  come  to  Christ,  or  it  is  not :  if  the  former,  then  they  may  come 
to  Christ  without  receiving  salvation ;  if  the  latter,  then  the  bar  to 
their  salvation  is  not  in  themselves. 

2.  The  argument  from  this  class  of  texts  is  not  exhausted ;  for  they 

expressly  exclude  God  from  all  participation  in  the  destruction  of 
sinners.  "  God  willeth  all  men  to  be  saved,"  &c.  Texts  which 
gave  rise  to  the  ancient  notion  of  a  secret  and  revealed  will  of 
God :  a  subterfuge  to  which  perhaps  few  Calvinists  in  the  present 
day  are  disposed  to  resort. 

EXTENT   OF    THE    ATONEMENT — CONTINUED.    (Ch.  XXvi.) 

As  the  Calvinists  have  no  direct  texts  in  support  of  their  doctrine,  they  re- 
sort mainly  to  implication  and  inference.  The  words  election,  calling, 
and  foreknowledge,  are  much  relied  upon  in  their  arguments.  We 
shall  now  proceed  to  examine  the  Scriptural  meaning  of  them. 

L  Election.     Three  kinds  of  election  are  mentioned  in  Scripture. 

(I.)  That  of  individuals  to  perform  some  special  service  :  e.  g.,  Cyrus  was 
elected  to  rebuild  the  temple ;  Paul,  to  be  the  apostle  of  the  Gentiles. 

(II.)  Collective  election.  (Pp.  308-337.) 
(a.)  Explanation  of  its  use  in  Scripture. 

1.  Of  the  Jews,  as  the  chosen  people  of  God.  (P.  308.) 

2.  Of  the  calling  of  believers  in  all  nations  to  be  in  reality  what  the 

Jews  had  been  typically.  (Pp.  308-310.) 
(b.)  Inquiry  as  to  its  effect  upon  the  extent  of  the  atonement. 
1.  With  respect  to  the  ancient  election  of  the  Jewish  church. 

(1.)   That  election   did  not  secure  the  salvation  of  every  Jew  in- 
dividually. 
(2.)  Sufficient  means  of  salvation  were  left  to  the  non-elect  Gentiles. 
(3.)  Nay,  the  election  of  the  Jews  was  intended  for  the  benefit  of 
the  Gentiles — to  restrain  idolatrv  and  diffuse  spiritual  truth. 
Vol.  I.— E. 


lviii  ANALYSIS  OF  WATSON'S  INSTITUTES.    , 

2.  With  respect  to  the  election  of  the  Christian  Church. 
(1.)  That  election  does  not  infallibly  secure  the  salvation  oi  the 

Christian. 
(2.)  It  concludes  nothing  against  the  salvability  of  those  who  are  not 

in  the  church. 
(3.)  Christians  are  thus  elected,  not  in  consequence  of,  or  in  order 

to,  the  exclusion  of  others ;  but  for  the  benefit  of  others  as  well 

as  themselves, 
(c.)  Collective  election  is  frequently  confounded  with  personal  election, 
by  Calvinistic  commentators,  especially  in  their  expositions  of 

Paul's  Discourse.  Romans  ix-xi.  (Pp.  312-337.) 

I.  Which  we  shall  examine,  first,  to  determine  whether  personal  or  col- 
lective election  be  the  subject  of  it.  (Pp.  312-325.) 
(1 .)  The  exclusion  of  the  Jew  is  the  first  topic  :  the  righteousness  of 
which  exclusion  Paul  vindicates  against  the  objections  raised  in 
the  minds  of  the  Jews, 
a.)  By  showing  that  God  had  limited  the  covenant  to  a  part  of  the 
descendants  of  Abraham:  (1.)  In  the  case  of  the  descendants 
of  Jacob  himself.     (2.)  From  Jacob  he  ascends  to  Abraham, 
v.  7.     (3.)  The  instance  of  Isaac's  children,  v.  10-13.     On  the 
passage,  "  Jacob  have  I  loved,  but  Esau  have  I  hated,"  which 
has  often  been  perverted,  we  remark:  1.  The  apostle  is  here 
speaking  of  "  the  seed,"  intended  in  the  promise.     2.  This  is 
proved  by  Gen.  xxv,  23:  "  Two  nations  are  in  thy  womb,"  etc. 
3.  Instances  of  individual  reprobation  would  have  been  imperti- 
nent to  the  apostle's  purpose, 
b.)  By  asking  the  objecting  Jews  to  say  whether  in  these  instances 
there  was  a  failure  of  God's  covenant  with  Abraham,  (p.  314,) 
he  expressly  denies  any  unrighteousness  in  them.     But  those 
who  would  interpret  these  passages  as  referring  to  personal  un- 
conditional election   and  reprobation,  are  bound  to  show  how 
they  could  be  righteous.  (P.  315.) 
c)  By  the  statement,  "  So  then,  it  is  not  of  him  that  willeth,"  etc. — 
containing  a  beautiful  allusion  to  the  case  of  Isaac  and  Esau. 
(2.)  The  next  point  of  the  discourse  is,  to  show  that  God  exercises  the 
prerogative  of  making  some  notorious  sinners  the  special  objects  of 
his  displeasure.  (P.  316.)     Here  again  the  example  is  taken  from 
the  Jewish  Scriptures ;   but  observe,  it.  is  not  Ishmael  or  Esau, 
but  Pharaoh,  a  Gentile,  who  was  a  most  appropriate  example  to 
illustrate  the  case  of  the  body  of  the  unbelieving  Jews,  who  were, 
when  the  apostle  wrote,  under  the  sentence  of  a  terrible  excision. 
(3.)  In  verse  nineteen  the  Jew  is  again  introduced  as  an  objector: 
M  Why  doth  he  yet  find  fault  V"  &c.  (P.  317.) 
(a.)  This  objection,  and  the  apostle's  reply,  are  usually  interpreted 


EXTENT  OF  TIIE   ATONEMENT.  Hk 

as  inculcating  upon  nations  visited  with  penal  inflictions,  the 
impropriety  of  debating  the  case  with  God.  This  interpretation 
is  hardly  satisfactory ;  for, 

1.  What  end  is  answered  by  teaching  a  hopeless  people  not  to  "  re- 

ply against  God  ?" 

2.  If  this  be  the  meaning,  the  apostle's  allusion  to  the  parable  of 

the  prophet,  Jer.,  chap,  xviii,  is  inappropriate;  as  that  parable 
supposes  the  time  of  trial,  as  to  such  nations,  to  be  not  yet- 
past. 
8.  " Dishonour "  is  not  destruction;  no  potter  makes  a  vessel  on 

purpose  to  destroy  it  (P.  318.) 
4.  This  interpretation  supposes  that  the  body  of  the  Jewish  nation 
had  arrived  already  at  a  state  of  dereliction,  which  is  not 
the  case, 
(b.)  A  different  view  of  this  part  of  Paul's  discourse  is  presented. 
(P.  319.)     The  objection  of  the  Jew  goes  upon  the  ground  of 
predestination,  which  is  refuted,  not  conceded,  by  the  apostle, 
as  follows : — 

1.  The  ':  vessel "  was  not  made  "  unto  dishonour,"  until  the  clay 

had  been  "  marred :"  i.  e.,  the  Jews  were  not  dishonoured 
until  they  had  failed  to  conform  with  the  design  of  God. 

2.  Jeremiah,  interpreting  the   parable,   represents   the   "disho- 

noured"  as  within    the    reach  of  the  divine  favour  upon 
repentance. 

3.  What  follows  verse  twenty-two,  serves  still  further  to  silence 

the  objector.    The  temporal  punishment  of  the  Jews  in  Judea 
is  alluded  to  bj'  the  apostle,  as  a  proof  both  of  sovereignty 
and  justice ;  but  that  punishment  does  not  preclude  the  salva- 
bility  of  the  race.  (P.  321.) 
(c.)  The  metaphor  of  "  vessels"  is  still  employed;  but  by  "  vessels 
of  dishonour,"  and  "  vessels  of  wrath,"  the  apostle  means  vessels 
in  different  conditions.     The  first,  being  part  of  the  prophecy 
which  signified  the  dishonoured  state  in  which  the  Jews,  for 
punishment  and   correction,   were   placed    under   captivity   in 
Babylon  :  the  second,  with  reference  to  the  prophecy  in  nine- 
teenth Jeremiah,  had  relation  to  the  coming  destruction  of  the 
temple,  city,  and  polity  of  the  Jews,  by  the  Romans.     There 
could  be  no  complaint  of  injustice  or  unrighteousness,  in  regard 
to  this  destruction  ;  for, 

1.  It  was  brought  upon  themselves  by  their  own  sins.  (P.  324.) 

2.  Moreover,  these  vessels  (adapted  to  destruction  by  their  own 

sins)  were  endured  with  much  long-suffering. 

The  tenth  and  eleventh  chapters  contain  nothing  but  what  refers  to  the 
collective  refection  of  the  Jewish  nation,  and  the  collective  election  of  all  believ- 
ing Jews  and  Gentiles  into  the  visible  Church  of  God.  The  discourse,  then 
can  onlj-  be  interpreted  of  collective  election  ;  and  we  now  proceed, 


I  ANALYSIS  OF   WATSON'S  INSTITUTES. 

II.  To  examine  it  secondly,  with  reference  to  the  question  of  unconditional 
election,  that  is,  an  election  of  persons  to  eternal  life  without  respect 
to  their  faith  or  obedience.  (Pp.  326-337.)     Such  election  finds  no 
place  in  this  chapter,  though  there  are  several  instances  of  uncon- 
ditional election ;  but  we  deny  that  the  spiritual  blessings  of  piety 
spring  necessarily  from  it,  or  that  unbelief  and  ruin  follow  in  like 
manner  non-election.     The  discourse  abundantly  refutes  such  opin- 
ions. (P.  327.) 
(1.)  The  descendants  of  Abraham  in  the  line  of  Isaac  and  Jacob  were 
elected,  but  true  faith  and  salvation  did  not  follow  as  infallible 
consequents.     So  were  the  Gentiles  at  length  elected,  but  obedi- 
ence and  salvation  did  not  necessarily  follow. 
(2.)  The  cases  of  non-election  or  rejection  were  not  infallibly  followed 
by  unbelief,  disobedience,  and  punishment :  e.  g.,  the  Ishmaelites 
— the  Edomites — the  rejected  Jews  in    the  apostolic  age.  (Pp. 
328,  329.) 
(3.)  The  only  argument  of  any  weight,  for  the  ground  that  individuals 
are  intended  in  this  discourse,  is,  that  as  none  are  acknowledged 
to  be  the  true  church  but  true  believers,  therefore  individual 
election  to  eternal  life  must  necessarily  be  included  in  the  notion 
of  collective  election ;  and  that  true  believers  only,  under  both 
the  old  and  new  dispensations,  constituted  the  "'■election" — the 
"  remnant  according  to  the  election  of  grace."  (P.  330.)     In  this 
argument  there  is  much  error. 

1.  It  is  a  mere  assumption,  that  the  spiritual  Israelites,  in  opposition 

to  Israelites  by  birth,  are  anywhere  called  the  "  election,"  or 
the  "  remnant,"  &c. 

2.  It  is  not  true,  that  under  the  old  dispensation  the  election  of  which 

the  apostle  speaks  was  confined  to  the  spiritual  seed  of  Abra- 
ham :  e.  g.,  case  of  Esau  and  Jacob  and  their  descendants. 

"..  This  notion  is  often  grounded  on  a  mistaken  view  of  verses  6-9 
in  this  chapter :  the  view,  namely,  that  in  this  passage  Paul  dis- 
tinguishes between  the  spiritual  Israelites  and  those  of  natural 
descent;  while  the  fact  is,  that  he  distinguishes  between  the 
descendants  of  Abraham  in  a  certain  line,  and  his  other  de- 
scendants. 

4.  Though  we  grant  that  the  election  of  bodies  of  men  to  church 
privileges  involves  the  election  of  individuals  into  the  true 
church, — still  this  last,  as  Scripture  plainly  testifies,  is  not  un- 
conditional, as  the  former  is,  but  depends  upon  their  repentance 
and  faith. 

We  have  thus  shown  that  the  apostle  treats  of  unconditional  collective 
election,  but  not.  of  unconditional  individual  election. 

(III.)  The  third  kind  of  election  is  personal  election,  or  the  choice  of  indi 
viduals  to  be  the  heirs  of  eternal  life.  (P.  337.) 


EXTENT  OF  THE   ATONEMENT.  lxi 

a.)  It  is  not  denied  that  true  believers  are  styled  in  Scripture  the  "  elect 
of  God  ;"  but  the  question  arises,  What  is  the  import  of  that  act  of 
grace  which  is  termed  "an  election?"  We  find  it  explained  in  two 
clear  passages  of  Scripture.  To  be  elected,  is  to  be  separated  from 
"  the  world,"  and  to  be  "  sanctified  by  the  Spirit,  and  by  the  blood 
of  Christ;"  hence,  election  is  not  only  an  act  done  in  time,  but  sub- 
sequent to  the  administration  of  the  means  of  salvation. 

b.)  The  Calvinistic  doctrine,  that  God  hath  from  eternity  chosen  unto 
salvation  a  set  number  of  men  unto  faith  and  final  salvation,  pre- 
sents a  different  aspect,  and  requires  an  appeal  to  the  Word  of  God. 
It  has  two  parts  :  1.  The  choosing  of  a  determinate  number  of  men , 
and,  2.  That  this  election  is  unconditional.  (P.  338.) 

A.  As  to  the  choosing  of  a  determinate  number  of  men,  it  is  allowed 

by  Calvinists  that  they  have  no  express  Scriptural  evidence  for 
this  tenet     And 

(1 .)  As  to  God's  eternal  purpose  to  elect,  wc  know  nothing  except 
from  revelation ;  and  that  declares,  (a)  that  he  willeth  all  men 
to  be  saved :  (b)  that  Christ  died  for  all  men,  in  order  to 
the  salvation  of  all :  and  (c)  the  decree  of  God  is,  "  He  that 
believeth  shall  be  saved,  and  he  that  believeth  not  shall  be 
damned ;"  and  if  God  be  unchangeable,  this  must  have  been  his 
decree  from  all  eternity :  (d)  if  the  fault  of  men's  destruction 
lies  in  themselves — as  we  have  proved — then  the  number  of  the 
elect  is  capable  of  increase  and  diminution. 

(2.)  This  doctrine  necessarily  carries  with  it  that  of  the  unconditional 
reprobation  of  all  mankind  except  the  elect,  which  cannot  be 
reconciled,  (a)  with  the  love  of  God;  (b)  with  the  tvisdom  of 
God ;  (c)  with  the  grace  of  God ;  (d)  with  the  compassion  of 
God  ;  (c)  with  the  justice  of  God ;  (f )  with  the  sincerity  of  God ; 
(g)  with  the  Scriptural  doctrine  that  God  is  no  respecter  of 
persons;  (h)  with  the  Scriptural  doctrine  of  Me  eternal  salvation 
of  infants;  (i)  and,  finally,  with  the  proper  end  of  punitive 
justice. 

B.  We  consider  now  the  second  branch  of  this  doctrine,  viz.,  that  per- 

sonal election  is  unconditional.  (P.  345.) 

(1.)  According  to  this  doctrine,  the  Church  of  God  is  constituted  on 
the  sole  principle  of  the  divine  purpose,  not  upon  the  basis 
of  faith  and  obedience,  which  manifestly  contradict*  the  Word 
of  God. 

(2.)  This  doctrine  of  election  without  respect  to  faith  contradicts  the 
history  of  the  commencement  and  first  constitution  of  the  Church 
of  Christ. 

(3.)  There  is  no  such  doctrine  in  Scripture  as  the  election  of  indi- 
viduals unto  faith ;  and  it  is  inconsistent  with  several  passages 
which  speak  expressly  of  personal  election  :  e.  g.,  John  xv,  19  ; 
1  Peter  i,  2;  2  Thess.  ii,  13,  14.  (Pp.  847,  348.) 


lxii  ANALYSIS  OF  WATSON'S  INSTITUTES. 

(4.)  There  is  another  class  of  texts,  referring  to  believers,  not  indi- 
vidually, but  as  a  body  forming  the  Church  of  Christ,  which 
texts,  containing  the  word  election,  are  ingeniously  or  perversely 
applied  by  Calvinists  to  the  support  of  their  doctrine,  when  in 
fact  they  do  not  contain  it.  Such  is  Eph.  i,  4-6.  Now  in  re- 
gard to  this  text,  it  might  be  shown,  (a)  that  if  personal  election 
were  contained  in  it,  the  choice  spoken  of  is  not  of  men  merely, 
but  of  believing  men  ;  but  (b)  it  does  not  contain  the  doctrine 
of  personal  election,  but  that  of  the  eternal  purpose  of  God  to 
constitute  his  visible  church  no  longer  upon  the  ground  of  de- 
scent from  Abraham,  but  on  that  of  faith  in  Christ. 

(5.)  Finally,  the  Calvinistic  doctrine  has  no  stronger  passage  to  lean 
upon.  (P.  351.)  We  conclude  by  asking,  if  this  doctrine  be 
true,  (a.)  Why  are  we  commanded  "  to  make  our  election  sure  ?" 
(b.)  Where  does  Scripture  tell  us  of  elect  unbelievers  t  (c.) 
And  how  can  the  Spirit  of  truth  convince  such  of  sin  and  danger 
when  they  are,  in  fact,  in  no  danger  ? 


JL  Having  thus  considered  election,  we  come  now  to  examine  those  texts 
which  speak  of  the  calling  and  predestination  of  believers. 

(I.)  The  words  "  call "  and  "  calling  "  occur  frequently  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment.    The  parable  in  Matthew  xxii,  1-14,  seems  to  have  given  rise 
to  many  of  these ;  and  a  clear  interpretation  of  it  will  explain  the  use 
of  the  phrase  in  most  other  passages, 
a.)  Three  classes  of  persons  are  calle d  in  the  parable.     (1.)  The  disobe- 
dient persons  who  made  light  of  the  call.     (2.)  Those  embraced  in 
the  class  of  "destitute  of  the  wedding  garment."    (3.)  The  approved 
guests, 
b.)  As  to  the  call  itself.    (1.)  The  three  classes  are  on  an  equality.     (2.) 
No  irresistible  influence  is  employed.     (3.)  They  are  called  into  a 
company,  or  society,  before  which  the  banquet  is  spread. 
These  views  explain  the  passages  in  which  the  term  is  used  in  the  epis- 
tles :  in  none  of  them  is  the  exclusive  calling  of  any  set  number  of 
men  contained. 

(II.)  The  Synod  of  Dort  attempt  (p.  355)  to  reason  the  doctrine  from  Ro- 
mans viii,  30.     But  this  passage  says  nothing  of  a  "  set  and  determinate 
number  of  men."    It  treats  indeed  of  the  privileges  and  hopes  of  be- 
lievers, but  not  as  secured  to  them  by  any  such  decree  as  the  Synod 
of  Dort  advocates  ;  for, 
(1.)  The  matter  would  have  been  out  of  place  in  St.  Paul's  lofty  con- 
clusion of  his  high  argument  on  justification  by  faith. 
(2.)  The  context   relieves  the  text  of  the  appearance  of  favouring  the 

doctrine. 
(3.)  The  apostle  does  indeed  speak  of  the  foreknowledge  of  believers, 


EXTENT  OF  THE  ATONEMENT.  Ixui 

taken  distributively  and  personally,  to  church  privileges ;  but  this 
strengthens  our  argument  against  the  use  of  the  passage  made  by 
the  Synod  of  Dort ;  for  1.  Foreknowledge  may  be  simple  approval, 
as  in  Romans  xi,  2  ;  and  2.  If  it  be  taken  in  this  passage  in  the  sense 
of  simple  prescience,  it  will  come  to  the  same  issue ;  for  believers,  if 
foreknown  at  all,  in  any  other  sense  than  all  men  are  foreknown, 
must  have  been  foreknown  as  believers. 
(4.)  As  to  the  predestination  spoken  of  in  the  text,  the  way  is  now  clear : 
the  foreknown  believers  were  predestinated,  called,  justified,  and 
glorified. 

Examination  of  certain  passages  op  Scripture  supposed  to 
limit  the  extent  of  christ's  redemption.  (ch.  xxvil) 

1.  John  vi,  37:  "All  that  the  Father  giveth  to  me  shall  come  tome;  and 

him  that  cometh  to  me,  I  will  in  no  wise  cast  out."    The  Calvinistic  view 
of  this  text  is,  that  a  certain  number  were  '■'■given"  to  Christ;  and  as 
none  others  can  come  to  him,  the  doctrine  of  distinguishing  grace  is  es- 
tablished. 
(1.)  Our  first  objection  to  this  view  is,  that  Christ  placed  the  reason  of  the 

Jews'  not  coming,  in  themselves.  John  v,  38,  40,  44,  46. 
(2.)  The  phrase,  "  to  be  given  "  by  the  Father  to  Christ,  is  abundantly  ex- 
plained by  the  context. 

2.  Matthew  xx,  15,  16.     The  Calvinistic  view  here  is,  that  God  has  a  right, 

on  the  principle  of  pure  sovereignty,  to  afford  grace  to  some,  and  to 
leave  others  to  perish  in  their  sins.  The  fact  that  this  passage  is  the  con- 
clusion of  the  parable  of  the  vineyard,  is  sufficient  refutation  of  the  in- 
terpretation. 

3.  2  Timothy  ii,  19.     This  text  bears  no  friendly  aspect  toward  Calvinism. 

4.  John  x,  26  :  "  But  ye  believe  not,  because  ye  are  not  of  my  sheep,  as  1 

said  unto  you."  It  is  a  sufficient  reply  to  the  Calvinistic  view  of  thin 
text,  to  state  that  men  are  called  "the  sheep  of  Christ  "in  regard  to  their 
qualities  and  acts,  and  not  with  reference  to  any  supposed  transaction 
between  the  Father  and  Christ. 

.*>.  John  xiii,  18.  The  term  "know"  in  this  text  is  evidently  used  in  the  sense 
of  discriminating  character. 

G.  John  xv,  16.  The  word  "  chosen  "  in  this  text  is  gratuitously  interpreted 
(by  Calvinists)  as  relating  to  an  eternal  election ;  but  Christ  had  "  chosen 
them  out  of  the  world"  which  must  have  been  done  in  time. 

7.  2  Timothy  i,  9  :  "  Who  hath  saved  us,  and  called  us  with  a  holy  calling," 
&c.  No  personal  election  spoken  of  here.  The  parallel  passage,  Eph. 
iii,  4-6,  shows  that  the  apostle  was  speaking  of  the  divine  purpose  to  form 
the  church  out  of  both  Jews  and  Gentiles. 


lxiv  ANALYSIS   OF  WATSON'S  INSTITUTES. 

8.  Acts  xiii,  48 :  "  And  as  many  as  were  ordained  to  eternal  life  believed." 
(1.)  If  the  Gentiles,  who  believed,  only  did  so  because  they  were  "  ordained  " 

so  to  do,  then  the  Jews,  who  believed  not,  were  not  guilty,  as  it  is  af- 
firmed, of  putting  the  word  away  from  them. 

(2.)  The  Calvinistic  view  carries  with  it  the  notion  that  all  the  elect  Gen- 
tiles at  Antioch  believed  at  once,  and  that  no  more  remained  to  be  con- 
verted. 

(3.)  Some  Calvinists  render  the  words  "determined"  or  "ordered,"  for 
eternal  life. 

(4.)  In  no  place  in  the  New  Testament  where  the  same  word  occurs,  is  it 
ever  employed  to  convey  the  meaning  of  destiny,  or  predestination. 

9.  Luke  x,  20.     Our  Calvinistic  friends  forget,  in  interpreting  this  text,  that 

names  may  be  "  blotted  out  of  the  book  of  life." 

10.  Prov.  xvi,  4.  The  true  meaning  is,  that  God  renders  even  those  who 
have  made  themselves  wicked,  the  means  of  glorifying  his  justice  in 
their  punishment. 

11.  John  xii,  37-40.     Quotation  from  Isaiah.    In  examining  this  passage,  we 

find, 

(1.)  That  it  does  not  affirm  that  the  eyes  of  the  Jew  should  be  blinded  by 
a  divine  agency,-  as  Mr.  Scott  and  the  Calvinists  assume.  In  every 
view  of  the  passage,  the  responsible  agent  is  "  this  people  " — the 
perverse  and  obstinate  Jews  themselves. 

(2.)  A  simple  prophecy  is  not  a  declaration  of  purpose  at  all ;  but  the  de- 
claration of  a  future  event. 

(3.)  Even  admitting  the  Calvinistic  view  of  this  passage,  it  would  afford  no 
proof  of  general  election  and  reprobation,  since  it  has  application  to 
the  unbelieving  part  of  the  Jews  only. 

12.  Jude  4.     These  certain  men  had  heen  foretold  in  the  Scriptures,  or  their 

punishment  predicted.     There  is  nothing  here  of  eternal  purpose. 

13.  1  Cor.iv,  7:  "For  who  maketh  thee  to  differ  from  another?"  A  fa- 
vourite argument  with  Calvinists  is  founded  on  this  text ;  and  a  dilemma 
raised  on  the  supposition  of  gospel  offers  being  made  to  two  men,  why 
one  accepts  and  the  other  rejects?  They  answer  that  election  alone 
solves  the  question.     But, 

(1.)  Put  the  question  as  to  one  man,  at  two  different  periods; — and  elec- 
tion will  not  solve  this  difficulty :  of  course,  then,  it  will  not  solve  the 
other. 

(2.)  The  question  of  the  apostle  has  reference  to  gifts  and  endowments,  not 
to  a  uifference  in  religious  state. 

(3.)  Following  out  their  view,  the  doctrine  would  follow,  that  sufficiency 
of  grace  is  denied  to  the  wicked, — which  would  remove  all  theii 
responsibility. 


EXTENT  OF  THE  ATONEMENT.  lx^ 

14.  Acts  xviii,  9,  10  :  "  .  .  .  for  I  have  much  people  in  this  city."  This 
may  mean,  either  that  there  were  many  devout  people  in  the  city,  or 
that  there  would  be  many  subsequently  converted  there. 


Theories  which  limit  the  extent  of  the  death  of  Christ. 

(Ch.  xxviii.) 

We  shall  notice  in  this  chapter  the  doctrines  of  predestination,  etc. 
As  stated  by   Calvin  himself,  and  by  Calvinistic  theologians  and  churches. 
(Pp.  381-410.) 

(I.)  Calvin. 

1.  Statement  of  his  opinions,  from  the  "  Institutes."  (Pp.  381,  382.) 

2.  His  answers  to  objections  shown  to  be  weak  and  futile,  (pp.  38o, 

384,)  e.  g., 

a.)  The  objection  that  the  system  is  unjust :  which  he  answers  by  as- 
serting that  it  is  the  will  of  God  :  thus  making  four  evasions — 1, 
2,  3,  4. 

b.)  The  objection  that  if  corruption  is  the  cause  of  man's  destruction, 
the  corruption  itself  was  an  effect  of  the  divine  decree  :  which  he 
answers  by  referring  again  to  the  sovereign  will  of  God.  (P.  384.) 

3.  His  attempts  to  reconcile  his  doctrine  with  man's  demerit,  and  to  relieve 

it  of  the  charge  of  making  God  the  author  of  sin,  shown  to  be  feeble 
and  contradictory.  (Pp.  385-387.) 

4.  His  system  not  reducable  to  sublapsarianism.  (P.  388.) 

5.  His  tenets  shown  to  be  in  opposition  to  the  doctrines  of  the  first  ages. 

(P.  389.) 

6.  Their  history  from  the  time  of  Augustine  to  Calvin.  (P.  390.) 

(IL)  Calvinistic  theologians  and  churches. 

1.  Three  leading  theories  prevalent  among  the  reformed  churches  prior 
to  the  Synod  of  Dort. 

a.)  Supralapsarian.  (1.)  Decree:  to  save  certain  men  by  grace,  and 
to  condemn  others  by  justice.  (2.)  Means:  creation  of  Adam, 
and  ordination  of  sin.  (3.)  Operation :  irresistible  grace,  pro- 
ducing faith  and  final  salvation.  (4.)  Result :  that  reprobates  have 
no  grace,  and  no  capacity  of  believing  and  of  being  saved.  (Pp. 
391,  392.) 

b.)  Also  supralapsarian,  but  differing  somewhat  from  (a.),  viz.,  that  it 
does  not  lay  down  the  creation  or  the  fall  as  a  mediate  cause,  fore- 
ordained of  God  for  the  execution  of  the  decree  of  reprobation ; 
but  yet  Arminius  shows  that,  according  to  this  view,  the  fall  is  a 
necessary  means  for  its  exercise,  and  thus  God  is  made  the  author 
of  sin.  (Pp.  392,  393.) 

c.)  Sublapsarian.  In  which  man,  as  the  object  of  predestination,  is 
considered  as  fallen. 


lxvi  ANALYSIS   OF  WATSON'S  INSTITUTES. 

(1.)  Statement  of  the  doctrine.  Its  basis  is,  that  the  whole  human 
race  are  liable  to  eternal  death  in  consequence  of  Adam's  trans- 
gression. 

(2.)  Refutation.  "  The  wages  of  sin  is  death,"  but  "  sin  is  the  trans- 
gression of  the  law." 

1.  If  the  race  be  contemplated  as  contained  seminally  in  Adam, 

then  the  whole  race  would  have  perished  in  Adam,  without 
the  vouchsafement  of  mercy  to  any. 

2.  If  contemplated  as  to  have  not  only  a  potential  but  a  real  exist- 

ence, then  the  doctrine  is,  that  every  man  of  the  race  is  ab- 
solutely liable  to  eternal  death  for  the  sin  of  Adam,  to  which 
he  was  not  a  consenting  party. 

3.  If  the  foreknowledge  of  actual  transgression  be  contemplated 

by  the  decree,  then  the  actual  sins  of  men  are  either  evitablo 
or  necessary :  if  the  former,  then  reprobates  may  be  saved ; 
if  the  latter,  none  are  responsible. 

4.  It  b  alleged  that  Paul  represents  all  men  under  condemnation 

to  eternal  death  in  consequence  of  their  connexion  with  the 
first  Adam  ;  but,  (p.  397,) 

a.)  In  the  gospel "  this  is  the  condemnation,  that  men  love  dark- 
ness rather  than  light."  Hence  the  previous  state  of  con- 
demnation was  not  unalterable. 

b.)  In  Scripture,  final  condemnation  is  always  placed  upon  the 
ground  of  actual  sin. 

c.)  The  true  sense,  of  the  apostle  in  Rom.  v,  is  to  be  obtained 
from  a  careful  examination  of  the  entire  argument.  He  ia 
not  representing,  as  Calvinists  have  it,  the  condition  in 
which  the  human  race  would  have  been  if  Christ  had  not 
interposed,  but  its  actual  condition,  both  in  consequence  of 
the  fall  of  man  and  the  intervention  of  Christ.  (Pp.  398- 
400.) 

2.  Decisions  of  the  Synod  of  Dort:  from  Scott's  translation  of  the  "Judg- 

ment of  the  Synod,"  &c,  read  in  the  great  church  at  Dort,  in  1G19. 
By  extracts  from  Acts  i,  1,  4-6,  10,  and  15,  it  is  clear  that  Dr.  Heylin 
gave  a  true  summary  of  the  eighteen  articles  on  predestination,  in 
the  following  words : — "  That  God,  by  an  absolute  decree,  hath 
elected  to  salvation  a  very  small  number  of  men,  without  any  regard 
to  their  faith  and  obedience  whatsoever ;  and  excluded  from  saving 
grace  all  the  rest  of  mankind,  and  appointed  them  by  the  same  de- 
cree to  eternal  damnation,  without  any  regard  to  their  infidelity  and 
impenitency."  (Pp.  401-407.) 

3.  The  Church  of  Scotland  expresses  its  doctrine  on  these  topics  in  the 

answers  to  the  12th  and  13th  questions  of  its  large  catechism;  in 
which  there  appears  a  strict  conformity  to  the  doctrines  of  Calvin. 

4.  The  Church  of  the  Vaudois,  in  Piedmont,  by  the  Confession  of  A.  D 

1120,  establish  the  doctrine  that  Christ  died  for  the  salvation  of  the 


EXTENT   OF  TIIE   ATONEMENT.  lxvii 

whole  world  ;  but  in  the  seventeenth  century  pastors  were  introduced 
from  Geneva,  and  the  Confession  of  1655  embraces  the  doctrine  and 
almost  the  very-  words  of  Calvin  on  this  point. 

5.  The  French  Churches,  in  their  Confession  of  1558,  declare  Calvinistic 

sentiments,  but  the  expressions  are  guarded  and  careful. 

6.  The  Westminster  Confession  gives  the  sentiments  of  the  English  Pres- 

byterian Churches,  and  of  the  Church  of  Scotland.  In  chapter  iii. 
the  doctrine  of  predestination  is  advanced  in  conformity  with  the 
most  unmitigated  parts  of  Calvin's  Institutes. 

II.  As  held  in  certain  modifications  of  the  Calvinistic  scheme.  (Pp.  410-422.) 

(I.)  Baxterianitm :  advanced  by  Richard  Baxter,  in  his  treatise  of  Universal 
Redemption,  and  in  his  Methodus  Theologies;  but  derived  from  the 
writings  of  Camero,  and  defended  by  Amyraut  and  others. 

1.  It  differs  from  High  Calvinism,  as  to  the  doctrine  of  satisfaction :  as 

the  system  explicitly  asserts  that  Christ  made  satisfaction  by  his  death 
equally  for  the  sins  of  every  man.  Baxter  draws  many  "  absurd  con- 
sequents from  the  doctrine  which  denieth  universal  satisfaction." 
(Pp.  413-416.) 

2.  But  from  an  examination  of  his  entire  scheme,  it  amounts  only  to  this, 

— that  although  a  conditional  satisfaction  has  been  purchased  by 
Christ  for  all  men,  yet  Christ  has  not  purchased  for  all  men  the 
power  of  performing  the  required  condition  of  salvation.  Baxter 
gives  to  the  elect  irresistible  effectual  grace  ;  but  to  others  sufficient 
grace,  which  is  called  by  himself,  aptly  enough,  "  sufficient  ineffectual 
grace."  He  admits  that  all  men  may  have  grace  to  bring  them 
nearer  Christ ;  but  coming  nearer  to  Christ,  and  nearer  to  saving 
faith,  are  with  him  quite  distinct.  His  concern  seems  to  be,  to  show, 
not  how  the  non-elect  might  be  saved,  but  how  they  might  with  some 
plausibility  be  damned.  Quotations  from  Curcellocus,  Dr.  Womack, 
and  Maclaine,  are  in  point.  (Pp.  417-421.) 

(H.)  Dr.  Williams's  scheme  is  in  substance  the  same  as  the  theory  of  supra- 
lapsarian  reprobation.  In  all  other  mitigated  schemes,  the  "  sufficiency 
of  grace  "  is  understood  in  Baxter's  sense.  The  labour  of  all  these 
theories  is  to  find  out  some  pretext  for  punishing  those  that  perish, 
independent  of  the  Scriptural  reason,  the  rejection  of  a  mercy  free 
for  all. 

HI.  As  to  their  origin.  They  seem  to  have  arisen,  not  from  a  careful  exami- 
nation of  Scripture,  but  from  metaphysical  subtleties,  for  by  these  they 
have  at  all  times  been  chiefly  supported. 

(I.)  Eternal  decrees. 

1.  This  term  is  nowhere  employed  in  Scripture  :  its  signification,  (if  it  be 


lxviii  ANALYSIS  OF  WATSON'S  INSTITUTES. 

used  at  all,)  must  be  controlled  by  Scripture.  The  decrees  of  God 
can  only  Scripturally  signify  the  determination  of  his  will  in  his 
government  of  the  world  he  has  made. 

2.  These  decrees  are,  in  Scripture,  referred  to  two  classes  :  (1)  a  deter- 

mination to  do  certain  things ;  and  (2)  a  determination  to  permit 
certain  things  to  be  done  by  free  and  accountable  creatures.  This 
last  does  not  involve  the  consequence  of  making  God  the  author  of 
sin. 

3.  That  many  of  the  divine  decrees  are  conditional  we  have  the  testimony  of 

Sciipture,  which  abounds  with  examples  of  decrees  to  which  condi- 
tions are  annexed.  We  have  also  instances,  as  in  the  case  of  Eli, 
of  the  revocation  of  the  divine  decrees.  (Pp.  425-428.) 

(II.)   The  prescience  of  God. 

1.  The  Calvinistic  popular  argument    is,  that  as  the  final  condition  of 

every  man  is  foreseen,  it  must  be  certain,  and  therefore  inevitable 
and  necessary.  The  answer  is,  that  certainty  and  necessity  are  two 
perfectly  distinct  predicaments, — as  certainty  exists  in  the  mind  fore- 
seeing, but  necessity  qualifies  the  action  foreseen. 

2.  The  scholastic  argument 

(a.)  The  schoolmen  distinguish  between  (1.)  Scientia  indefinita,  the 
knowledge  of  possible  things,  and  (2.)  Scientia  vusionis,  the  know- 
ledge which  God  has  of  all  real  existences;   to  which  the  anti- 
predestinarians  added  (3.)  Scientia  media,  to  express  God's  know- 
ledge of  the  actions  of  free  agents,  and  the  divine  acts  consequent 
upon  them, 
(b.)  Absolute  predestination  is  identified  with  scientia  visionis  by  the 
Calvinists:  illustrated  by  an  extract  from  Hill's  Lectures.  (P.  431.) 
The  sophistry  of  Dr.  Hill's  statement  lies  in  this,  that  the  determina- 
tion of  the  divine  will  to  produce  the  universe  is  made  to  include 
a  determination  "  to  produce  the  whole  series  of  beings  and 
events  that  were  then  future :"  while  among  the  "  beings  "  to  be 
produced  were  some  endowed  with  free  will.     If  this  be  denied, 
then  man  is  not  accountable  for  his  personal  offences :  if  al- 
lowed, then  his  (say)  sinful  acts  cannot  have  been  determined 
in  the  same  manner  by  the  divine  will,  as  the  production  of  the 
universe  and  the  beings  which  composed  it. 

(III.)   The  human  will.  (P.  435.) 

1.  Calvinists  find  it  necessary  to  the  consistency  of  their  theory  that  the 
volitions,  as  well  as  the  acts,  of  man  should  be  placed  in  bondage ; 
and  their  doctrine  fairly  stated  is,  that  the  will  is  determined  to  one 
class  of  objects,  no  other  being  possible.  The  Scriptural  doctrine  is, 
that,  by  the  grace  of  God,  man — who  without  that  grace  would  be 
morally  incapable  of  choosing  anything  but  evil — is  endowed  with 
the  power  of  choosing  good.  (P.  436.) 


EXTENT  OF  THE   ATONEMENT.  lxix 

2.  More  moderate  Calvinists  contend  that  transgressors  are  responsible 

for  their  evil  acts,  because  they  are  done  willingly,  although  their 
will  could  not  but  choose  them.  We  reply,  that  this  is  only  the  case 
where  the  time  of  trial  is  past,  as  in  devils  and  apostates ;  and  then 
only  because  these  are  personally  guilty  of  having  vitiated  their  own 
wills :  but  the  case  is  different  as  to  probationers  ;  for, 
(1.)  It  is  decided  by  the  Word  of  God,  that  men  who  perish  might 

have  "  chosen  life."  (P.  438.) 
(2.)  The  natural  reason  of  mankind  is  in  direct  opposition  to  the  doc- 
trine. (P.  439.) 

3.  The  metaphysical  doctrine  is,  that  the  will  is  swayed  by  motives  which 

arise  from  circumstances  beyond  the  control  of  man;  but,  (p.  439,) 
(1.)  This  still  leaves  us  in  the  difficulty,  that  men  are  bound  by  a 

chain  of  events  established  by  an  almighty  power. 
(2.)  The  doctrine  is  contradicted  by  the  language  of  men  in  all  coun- 
tries and  ages. 
(3.)  We  deny  the  necessary  connexion  between  motive  and  volition. 
That  the  mind  acts  generally  under  the  influence  of  motives  may 
be  granted,  but  that  it  is  operated  upon  by  them  necessarily,  is 
contradicted, 
(a.)  By  the  fact  of  our  often  acting  under  the  weakest  reason,  which 

is  the  character  of  all  sins  against  judgment ;  and, 
(b.)  By  the  fact  that  we    have  power  to  displace  one  motive  by 
another,  and  to  control  those  circumstances  from  which  motives 
flow. 

(IV.)   The  divine  sovereignty.  (P.  422.) 
The  Calvinistic  doctrine  is,  that  God  does  what  he  wills,  only  because  he 
wills  it.    But  it  can  be  shown  from  Scripture,  that  the  acts  of  the 
divine  will  are  under  the  direction  of  the  divine  tvisdom,  goodness, 
and  justice. 

(V.)  The  case  of  heathen  nations  is  sometimes  referred  to  by  Calvinists  as 
presenting  equal  difficulties  to  those  urged  against  election  and  repro- 
bation. But  the  cases  are  not  parallel,  unless  it  be  granted  that 
heathen,  as  such,  are  excluded  from  heaven.  (P.  444.) 

1 .  Heathen  are  bad  enough,  but  the  question  is  not  what  they  are,  but 

what  they  might  be :  they  are  under  the  patriarchal  dispensation  ; 
and 

2.  St  Paul  affirms  that  the  divine  law  has  not  perished  from  among  them, 

but  that  if  they  live  up  to  the  light  which  they  possess  they  may  be 
saved. 

(VI.)  Irresistible  grace.  We  admit  that  man,  in  his  simply  natural  state,  is 
insufficient  of  himself  to  think  or  do  anything  of  a  saving  tendency  ; 
and  that  when  the  Holy  Spirit  is  vouchsafed,  we  are  often  entirely  pas- 
sive in  the  first  instance ;  but  we  contend  that  the  grace  of  God  has 


* 


Ixx  ANALYSIS   OF  WATSON'S   INSTITUTES. 

been  bestowed  upon  all  men,  inasmuch  as  all  are  required  to  do  those 
things  which  have  a  saving  tendency.     These  premises 

1.  Establish  the  justice  of  God  in  the  condemnation  of  men,  and 

2.  Secure  the  glory  of  our  salvation  to  the  grace  of  God.  (P.  448.) 


(D.)— FURTHER  BENEFITS  OF  REDEMPTION.  (Ch.  xxix.) 

Entire  sanctification  of  believers.  That  there  is  a  distinction  between  a  re- 
generate state  and  a  state  of  perfect  holiness,  is  sufficiently  proved  by  the 
exhortations  to  believers  in  1  Thess.  v,  23,  and  2  Cor.  vii,  1. 

1 .  The  time  when  we  are  to  expect,  this  blessing  has  been  disputed.    It  is 

admitted  that  the  soul  must  be  entirely  cleansed  before  it  can  pass  into 
heaven,  but  many  contend  that  the  final  stroke  to  corruption  can  only 
be  given  at  death ;  but 

(1.)  The  promise  of  sanctification  is  nowhere  restricted  in  Scripture  to 
the  article  of  death. 

(2.)  The  soul's  union  with  the  body  is  nowhere  represented  as  a  necessary 
obstacle  to  its  entire  sanctification.  Romans  vii,  has  indeed  been  ad- 
duced in  proof  of  this,  but  it  is  clear  that  the  apostle  is  giving  the 
experience  of  one  yet  under  the  law,  and  not  in  a  state  of  deliverance 
by  Christ. 

(3.)  This  doctrine  is  disproved  by  those  passages  which  connect  sanctifi- 
cation with  the  subsequent  exhibition  of  its  fruits  in  life. 

(4.)  It  is  disproved,  also,  by  all  those  passages  which  require  us  to  bring 
forth  the  fruits  of  the  Spirit;  for  these  are  required  of  us  in  perfec- 
tion and  maturity,  and  necessarily  suppose  the  entire  sanctification 
of  the  soul  from  the  opposite  and  antagonist  evils. 

(5.)  This  doctrine  involves  other  antiscriptural  consequences : — that  the 
seat  of  sin  is  in  the  flesh ;  and  that  the  flesh  must  not  only  lust  against 
the  spirit,  but  on  many  occasions  be  the  conqueror. 

We  conclude,  then,  that  as  sanctification  can  neither  be  referred  to  the 
hour  of  death,  nor  placed  subsequently  to  this  life,  it  is  an  attainment 
to  which  believers  are  called  during  this  life. 

2.  The  manner  of  sanctification.   It.  may  be,  (1)  gradual,  or  (2)  instantaneous. 

3.  Objections  to  this  doctrine. 

(1.)  It  supposes  future  impeccability.  Nay :  the  angels  sinned,  and  so 
did  our  first  parents. 

(2.)  It  renders  the  atonement  and  intercession  of  Christ  superfluous. 
Nay :  for  this  state  of  sanctification  is  maintained  by  the  constant  in- 
fluences of  the  Holy  Spirit,  vouchsafed  through  Christ's  intercession. 

(3.)  It  shuts  out  the  use  of  the  prayer,  "  Forgive  us  our  trespasses."  But, 
a)  this  prayer  is  designed  for  men  in  a  mixed  condition,  b)  All  sin 
must  not  be  continued,  in  order  that  this  prayer  may  be  employed. 


tfe 


FURTHER  BENEFITS  OF  REDEMPTION.  \jOtS 

And  c)  The  defects  and  infirmities  of  a  being  naturally  imperfect, 
are  not  inconsistent  with  moral  holiness. 

II.  The  right  to  pray  is  another  benefit  which  accrues  to  believers ;  and  so  is 

III.  The  special  providence  of  God. 

IV.  Victory  over  death  is  also  awarded  to  them. 

V.  The  immediate  reception  of  the  soul  into  a  state  of  blessedness.   "  The  sacred 

writers  proceed  on  the  supposition  that  the  soul  and  the  body  are  naturally 
distinct  and  separable,  and  that  the  soul  is  susceptible  of  pain  or  pleasure 
during  that  separation."     Quotation  from  Campbell. 

VI.  Resurrection  of  the  body.  There  is  some  dispute  in  regard  to  this  doctrine 
— whether  it  implies  a  resurrection  of  the  substance  of  the  body,  or  of  a 
minute  and  indestructible  germ. 

1.  The  only  passage  of  Scripture  which  seems  to  favour  the  germ  theory  is 

1  Cor.  xv,  35 :  "  How  arc  the  dead  raised  up  ?  and  with  what  body  do 
they  come  ?"  These  two  questions  both  imply  a  doubt  as  to  the  fact, 
not  an  inquiry  as  to  the  modus  agendi ;  and  the  apostle  answers  them 
by  showing,  in  answer  to  the  first  question,  that  there  is  nothing  in- 
credible in  the  thing ;  and  in  answer  to  the  second,  that  the  doctrine 
of  our  reunion  with  the  body  implies  nothing  contrary  to  the  hopes  of 
liberation  from  the  "  burden  of  this  flesh,"  because  of  the  glorified 
qualities  which  God  is  able  to  give  to  matter.  (P.  4G3.) 

2.  There  are  several  difficulties  connected  with  this  theory  ;  for  on  its  hy- 

pothesis 

(1.)  There  is  no  resurrection  of  the  body ;  for  the  germ  cannot  be  called 
the  body. 

(2.)  There  is  no  resurrection  from  death  at  all,  but  a  vegetation  from  a 
secret  principle  of  life. 

(3.)  It  is  substantially  the  same  with  the  pagan  doctrine  of  metempsy- 
chosis. 

An  objection  to  the  resurrection  of  the  body  has  been  drawn  from  the. 
changes  of  its  substance  during  life.  This  does  not  affect  the  doctrine,  that 
the  body  which  is  laid  in  the  grave  shall  be  raised  up.  "  But,"  we  are  told, 
"  the  same  bodies  that  sin  may  not  be  punished."  We  answer,  that  the  soul 
is  the  only  rewardable  subject — the  body  is  its  instrument. 


PAR  T    T  HI  RD. 


MORALS    OF    CHRISTIANITY 


OUTLINE. 

(I.)      The  moral  law.  (Ch.  i.) 

(II.)    The  duties  we  owe  to  God.  (Ch.  ii,  iii.) 
(HI.)  Duties  to  our  neighbour.  (Ch.  iv.) 


(I.)  THE  MORAL  LAW.  (Ch.  i.) 

Preliminary  observations : — 

(1.)  The  morals  of  the  New  Testament  are  not  presented  to  us  in  the  form 

of  a  regular  code. 
(2.)  The  divine  authority  of  the  Old  Testament  is  everywhere  presupposed. 

I.  The  moral  laios  of  the  Old  Testament  pass  into  ihe  Christian  code.  (Pp.  469, 

470.) 

1.  The  ceremonial  law  is  repealed,  being  adumbrative  and  temporary; 

2.  The  political  law  also ;  but 

3.  The  moral  precepts  are  not  repealed  ;  but  even  incidentally  re-enacted. 

Scil.,  Christ's  declaration,  "  I  am  not  come  to  destroy  the  law,  but  to 
fulfil ;"  and  Paul's,  "  Do  we  then  make  void  the  law  through  faith  ?" 
The  argument,  then,  from  the  want  of  formal  re-enactment,  has  no 
weight. 

4.  The  entire  decalogue  is  brought  into  the  Christian  code  by  a  distinct  in- 

junction of  its  separate  precepts.  (Pp.  470,471.) 

II.  These  laws,  in  the  Christian  code,  stand  in  other  and  higher  circumstances 

than  under  the.  Mosaic  dispensation. 

1.  They  are  extended  more  expressly  to  the  heart. 

2.  They  are  carried  out  into  a  greater  variety  of  duties. 

3.  There  is  a  more  enlarged  injunction  of  positive  and  particular  virtues. 

4.  All  overt  acts  are  connected  with  corresponding  principles. 

5.  These  laws  are  connected  with  promises  of  divine  assistance. 

6.  They  have  a  living  illustration  in  the  example  of  Christ. 

7.  They  are  connected  with  higher  sanctions. 


^ 


THE  MORAL  LAW.  lxxiii 

III.  All  attempts  to  teach  morals,  independent  of  Christianity,  must  be  of  mis- 
chievous tendency.  (Pp.  472-474.) 

1.  Because  such  attempts  convey  the  impression  that  reason  alone  could 

discover  the  duty  of  man. 

2.  Because  they  displace  what  is  perfect  for  what  is  imperfect. 

3.  Because  they  turn  away  from  the  revealed  law  to  inferior  conside rations. 

such  as  beauty,  fitness,  &c. 

4.  Because  they  either  enjoin  duties  merely  outward  in  the  act,  or  dse  as- 

sume that  human  nature  is  able  to  cleanse  itself. 

5.  Because  that  by  separating  doctrines  from  morals,  they  propose  a  new 

plan,  other  than  that  of  the  gospel,  for  renovating  and  moralizing  the 
world.  Yet  moral  philosophy,  if  properly  guarded,  and  taken  in  con- 
nexion with  the  whole  Christian  system,  is  not  to  be  undervalued. 

IV.  As  to  the  reasons  on  which  moral  precepts  rest,  it  may  be  remarked, 

1.  Some  rest  wholly  on  the  authority  of  a  revealer  ; 

2.  Others  are  accompanied  with  manifest  rational  evidence ; 

3.  Others  partially  disclose  their  rationale  to  the  anxious  inquirer. 

V.  With  respect  to  the  application  of  general  precepts,  wide  observation  is  ne- 

cessary. 

1 .  The  precepts  must  be  general. 

2.  Exceptions  to  general  rules  should  be  watched  with  jealousy. 

VI.  Grounds  of  moral  obligation. 

1.  "Eternal  and  necessary  fitness  of  things,"  leaves  the  question  still  open. 

2.  "  Moral  sense,"  also  unsatisfactory ;  for 

(a.)  Its  indications  are  neither  perfect  nor  uniform. 
(b.)  Its  mandates  have  no  authority. 

3.  "  Doctrine  of  the  greatest  good  :"  circuitous,  and  impossible  in  practice. 

4.  TJte  will  of  God,  then,  the  only  true  ground  of  moral  obligation.     The 

obligation  is  founded  on  the  relation  of  the  creature  to  the  Creator. 

VII.  Nature  of  moral  rectitude.     (Payne's  view.) 

1.  We  sustain  various  relations  to  God. 

2.  We  sustain  various  relations  to  each  other. 

Virtue  is  the  conformity  or  harmony  of  man's  affections  or  actions,  with  the 
various  regulations  in  which  he  has  been  placed ;  and  since  these  rela- 
tions were  constituted  by  God,  rectitude  may  be  regarded  as  conformity 
to  the  moral  nature  of  God,  the  ultimate  standard  of  virtue. 
Vol.  I.— F. 


lxxiv  ANALYSIS  OF  WATSON'S  INSTITUTES. 


(II.)  THE  DUTIES  WE  OWE  TO  GOD.  (Ch.  ii,  iii.) 

Summed  up  in  Scripture  under  the  word  godliness,  embracing 
L  Internal  principles. 

1.  Submission  to  God. 

(a.)  Grounded  on  the  obligations  (1)  of  creation,  (2)  of  redemption, 
(b.)  Regulated  by  his  will,  which  is  the  highest  rule  of  moral  virtue, 

(1)  Because  of  its  authority. 

(2)  Because  it  defines  and  enforces  every  branch  of  duty. 

(3)  Because  it  annuls  every  contrary  rule. 

(4)  Because,  instead  of  lowering  its  claims  to  suit  man's  weakness,  it 
connects  itself  with  the  offer  of  strength  from  on  high. 

(5)  Because  it  accommodates  itself  to  no  man's  interests. 

(6)  Because  it  admits  no  exceptions  in  obedience. 

2.  Love  to  God. 

(a.)  Its  nature.  (Pp.  481,  482.) 

(b.)  Its  importance  in  securing  obedience.  (Pp.  482,  483.) 

3.  Trust  in  God. 

(a.)  Grounded  on  the  divine  injunction.     Probable  reason,  to  secure  our 

peace  of  mind, 
(b.)  Measured  by  the  divine  promises  of  help  in  the  word  of  God. 
(c.)  Hence  connected  with  conversion,  necessarily.  (Pp.  484,  485.) 

4.  Fear  of  God. 

(a.)  Its   nature: — (1.)   Reverential,  not  servile;    yet  (2.)  Involving  a 

sense  of  our  conditional  liability  to  his  displeasure, 
(b.)  Its  practical  influence. 

5.  Holiness  rests  upon  these  moral  principles  and  habits. 


II.  External  duties. 
A.  Prayer. 

(a.)  It  is  enjoined  in  Scripture.  Matt,  vii,  7  ;  Luke  xxi,  36  ;  Phil,  iv,  6  ; 
1  Thess.  v,  17.  Where  it  is  required  to  be  (1.)  Earnest:  John  iv, 
24;  Rom.  xii,  12.  (2.)  Importunate:  Luke  xi ;  2  Cor.  xii,  8,  9. 
(3.)  Offered  for  particular  blessings  :  Phil,  iv,  G  ;  Psalm  cxxii,  6  ; 
Zech.  x,  1 ;  1  Tim.  ii,  1-3,  etc. 
(b.)  The  reason  on  which  it  rests.     We  can  infer  from  Scripture, 

1.  That  it  cannot  of  itself  produce  in  man  a  fitness  for  the  reception 

of  God's  mercies. 

2.  That  it  is  not  an  instrument  but  a  condition  of  grace.  (Pp.  489, 490.) 

3.  But  that  it  preserves  in  men's  minds  a  sense  of  God's  agency  in  the 

world,  and  of  the  dependence  of  all  creatures  upon  him.  (P.  491.) 
(c.)   Objections  to  this  duty. 

1.  One  is  founded  on  predestination. 


THE  DUTIES  WE  OWE   TO   GOD.  lxxv 

a.  Answer  on  predestinarian  principles  insufficient  and  contradictory. 

b.  True  answer,  that  although   God  has  absolutely  predetermined 

some  things,  there  are  others  which  he  has  conditionally  pre- 
determined. 
.  2.  A  second  is  founded  on  the  perfections  of  the  divine  character. 
Paley's  answer. 
3.  A  third  is,  that  it  is  hard  to  conceive  how  prayer  can  affect  the  case 
of  others. 

a.  If  it  were  so,  that  would  not  affect  the  duty. 

b.  But  it  is  no  harder  to  conceive  than  why  one  man's  virtues  or 

vices  should  affect  the  condition  of  others,  which  is  the  case 
every  day.  (Pp.  493,  494.) 
(d.)  Division  of  prayer.     Four  branches. 

1.  Ejaculatory. 

a.  Its  nature,     b.  Its  advantages. 

2.  Private. 

a.  Founded  upon  Christ's  injunction  and  example. 

b.  Designed  to  produce  unlimited  confidence  in  God  our  Father. 

3.  Family. 

a.  Paley's  view  of  it  defective. 

b.  Its  obligation  shown,  (1.)  From  the  very  constitution  of  a  family. 

(Pp.  496,  497.)  (2.)  From  the  fact  that  the  earliest  patriarchal 
worship  was  family  worship,  which  was  not  revoked  either  by 
Judaism  or  Christianity.  (Pp.  498,  499.) 

c.  Its  advantages. 

4.  Public. 

a.  Its  obligation  shown.  (P.  500.)     (1.)  From  the  example  of  public 

worship  among  the  Jews.  (2.)  By  inference,  from  the  com- 
mand to  publish  the  gospel  implying  assemblies.  (3.)  By  direct 
precepts,  e.  g.,  Paul's  Epistles  are  commanded  to  be  read  in 
churches.  (4.)  From  the  practice  of  the  primitive  age,  shown 
from  St  Paul  and  St.  Clement. 

b.  Its  advantages.  (P.  501.) 
(e.)  Forms  of  prayer. 

1.  Worship  should  be  spiritual — which  was  doubtless  the  character  of 

that  of  the  primitive  Church.  (P.  502.)  Latin  and  Greek  corrup- 
tions. The  liturgies  of  the  reformed  churches  purified  from  these 
corruptions. 

2.  Objections  to  forms  of  prayer. 

a.  Absolute.     But 

(1.)  This  objection  involves  principles  which  cannot  be  acted 

upon.  (P.  503.) 
(2.)  It  disregards  example  and  antiquity.     Example  of  Jews :  of 

John  Baptist :  of  Christ :  of  primitive  Church.  (P.  504.) 

b.  It  is  objected,  that  "  forms  composed  for  one  age  become  unfit  for 

another."     But, 


Ixxvi  ANALYSIS   OF  WATSON'S  INSTITUTES. 

(1.)  The  form  may  be  modified. 

(2.)  In  fact,  such  forms  have  not  become,  obsolete  among  us. 
(3.)  If  opinions  become   unscriptural,   the  form  is  a  safeguard 
against  heresy. 

c.  "  The  repetition  of  the  form  produces  weariness  and  inattention." 

Answer, 
(1.)  The  devout  will  not  grow  weary. 
(2.)  The  undevout  will,  even  if  extempore  prayers  are  used. 

d.  "  Forms  must  take  too  general  a  character."  (P.  506.)     Answer, 
(1.)  This  is  not  true  of  the  Liturgy  of  the  Church  of  England. 
(2.)  If  extempore  prayer  be  allowed  also,  the  objection  has  no 

weight. 

3.  Objections  to  extempore  prayer. 

a.  It  gives  rise  to  extravagant  addresses  to  God.     Ans.  This  will 

only  be  the  case  where  the  preachers  are  foolish  or  incompetent. 

b.  It  confuses  the  minds  of  the  hearers.     Ans.  This  lay  against  the 

inspired  prayers  in  the  Bible  when  first  uttered;  and  would  now 
lie  against  all  occasional  forms.     Facts,  too,  disprove  it. 

4.  Conclusion.     That  each  mode  has  its  advantages,  and  that  their  pro- 

per combination  forms  the  best  public  service. 

B.  Praise  and  thanksgiving. 

a.  Psalms  and  hymns,  to  be  sung  with  the  voice,  and  united  with  the 

melody  of  the  heart,  are  of  apostolic  injunction. 

b.  Uses.     1)  To  acknowledge  God.     2)  To  promote  suitable  sentiments 

of  gratitude  and  dependence  in  our  hearts. 

C.  Observance  of  the  Lord's  day.  (Ch.  iii.) 
I.  Obligation.  (Pp.  508-520.) 

(I.)  Though  the  observance  is  nowhere  enjoined  in  so  many  words, 
yet,  on  the  supposition  that  the  Sabbath  was  instituted  at  the 
creation,  we  derive  its  obligation  with  great  clearness  from  the 
Scriptures. 

a.  As  to  the  observance  of  a  Sabbath  in  general. 

(1.)  Inferentially,  from  the  history  of  its  observance  from  the  crea- 
tion down  to  the  period   of  the  gospel  narrative,  (p.  509,) 
while  no  Scripture  indicates  its  abolition. 
(2.)  Directly,  since  the  decalogue  is  binding  on  us,  proved,  (p.  510,) 
(a.)  By  our  Lord's  declaration,  that  he  "  came  not  to  destroy 

the  law  and  the  prophets." 
(b.)  By  the  text,  "  the  Sabbath  was  made  for  man." 
(c.)  By  St.  Paul's  reply,  (Rom.  iii,  31,)  "Do  we  then  make 
void  the  law  through  faith?" 

b.  As  to  the  observance  of  a  particular  day : — 

(1.)  The  change  from  the  seventh  to  the  first  day  was  made  by 
inspired  men.  (P.  511.) 


THE  DUTIES   WE  OWE  TO   GOD.  lxxvii 

(2.)  This  change  did  not  alter  the  law  of  the  Sabbath,  which  was 
not  so  circumstantial  as  to  require  uniform  modes  of  reckon- 
ing time,  and  observance  of  latitudes  and  longitudes  for  its 
fulfilment.  (P.  512.) 
(3.)  The  original  command  says  nothing  of  the  epoch  when  the 

reckoning  should  begin.   (Holden,  pp.  512,  513.) 
(4.)  But,  for  the  sake  of  public  worship,  the  Sabbath  should  be 
uniformly  observed  by  a  whole  community  at  the  same  time. 
(II.)  But  it  has  been  denied  that  the  Sabbath  teas  instituted  at  the. 
creation.  (P.  514.) 
a.  Paley's  ground,  as  summed  up  and  answered  by  Holden.     His 
principal  ground  is,  "that  the  first  institution  of  the  Sabbath 
took  place  during  the  .sojourning  of  the  Jews  in  the  wilderness ;" 
and  from  the  passage  in  Exod.  xvi,  he  infers, 

1.  "  That  if  the  Sabbath  had  been  instituted  at  creation,  there 

would  be  some  mention  of  it  in  the  history  of  the  patriarchal 
ages."  But  this  history  is  very  brief:  there  are  omissions  in  it 
more  extraordinary,  e.  g.,  prayer  and  circumcision.  The  Sab- 
bath is  hardly  mentioned  in  Joshua,  Judges,  Ruth,  &c. ;  but 
the  observance  of  it  seems  to  be  intimated  by  the  division  of 
time  into  weeks,  in  the  patriarchal  history. 

2.  "  That  there  is  not,  in  Exod.  xvi,  any  intimation  that  the  Sab- 

bath was  only  the  revival  of  an  ancient  institution."  But  the 
fact  is,  that  it  is  mentioned  exactly  in  the  way  an  historian 
would,  who  had  occasion  to  speak  of  a  well-known  institution. 
3  Gen.,  chap,  ii,  is  next  adduced  by  Dr.  Paley  as  not  inconsistent 
with  his  opinion,  as  he  concurs  with  those  critics  who  suppose 
that  Moses  mentioned  the  sanctification  of  the  Sabbath  in  that 
place,  by  prolepsis,  in  the  order  of  connexion,  not  of  time. 
But  this  doctrine  is  altogether  gratuitous,  and  also  inconsistent 
with  the  design  of  the  sacred  historian  to  give  a  clear  and 
faithful  history. 
The  law  of  the  Sabbath,  then,  is  universal,  and  not  peculiar  to  the  Jews. 

II.  Mode  of  observing  the  Christian  Sabbath.  (Pp.  520-524.) 

1.  There  are  two  extremes:  (1.)  To  regard  the  Sabbath  merely  as  a 

prudential  institution ;  (2.)  To  neglect  the  distinction  between  the 
moral  and  the  ceremonial  law  of  Moses:  but  yet, 

2.  Those  precepts  of  the  Lcvitical  code  which  relate  to  the  Sabbath 

are  of  great  use  to  us,  (p.  522;)  though,  independent  of  these, 

3.  We  have  throughout  the  Scriptures  abundant  guidance, — by  which 

we  learn,  a.)  That  the  Sabbath  is  to  be  a  day  of  rest  and  devotion. 
b.)  That  works  of  mercy  are  not  unlawful,  c.)  But  that  the 
management  of  public  charities  is  too  secular  an  employment  for 
the  Sabbath,  d.)  And  that  amusements  and  recreations  are  out 
of  place,  nay,  sinful. 


hxviii  ANALYSIS   OP  WATSON'S  INSTITUTES. 


(III.)  DUTIES  TO  OUR  NEIGHBOUR.  (Ch.  iv.) 

I.  Charity,  which  is  to  be  considered, 

1.  As  to  its  source. 

That  source  is  a  regenerated  state  of  mind. 

2.  As  to  its  exclusiveness.    It  shuts  out  all  1)  anger;  2)  implacability;  3)  re- 

venge ;  4)  prejudice  ;  5)  evil-speaking ;  6)  petty  aggressions,  though  legal ; 
7)  artificial  distinctions,  as  its  limitations. 

3.  As  to  its  active  expression. 

(1.)  It  delights  in  sympathy,  liberality,  &c,  as  it  is  not  merely  negative. 

(2.)  It  dictates  and  regulates  works  of  mercy. 

(3.)  It  teaches  us  that  we  are  only  stewards  of  the  divine  goodness.  (P.  528.) 

II.  Justice.     (I.)  Ethical.     (II.)  Economical.     (III.)  Political. 
(I.)  Ethical  justice  respects, 

A.  Man's  natural  rights,  which  are, 

1.  Right  to  life;   which  is  guarded  by  the  precept,  "Thou  shalt  not 

kill,"  &c. 

2.  Right  of  property :  guarded  by  the  law,  "  Thou  shalt  not  steal  nor 

covet." 

3.  Right  of  liberty.    Manstealing  is  classed  in  the  New  Testament  with 

the  greatest  crimes.  In  noticing  the  question  of  slavery,  we  remark, 
a.)  That  slavery  did  exist  under  the  Jewish  law ;  but  of  a  much  milder 
type  than  that  which  prevailed  in  the  surrounding  nations ;  and  all 
that  can  be  inferred  from  it  is,  that  a  legislature  may,  in  certain 
cases,  be  justified  in  mitigating,  rather  than  abolishing,  the  evil, 
b.)  Every  Christian  government  binds  itself  to  be  regulated  by  the 
principles  of  the  New  Testament,  which  are  obviously  opposed  to 
slavery.  (Pp.  531,  532.) 
c.)  Modern  African  slavery  of  course  calls  loudly  for  the  application  of 
such  principles.  The  slaves  have  never  lost  the  right  to  liberty ; 
and  that  liberty  should  be  restored.  The  manner  of  its  restora- 
tion is  in  the  power  of  government,  provided,  1.  That  the  eman- 
cipation be  sincerely  determined  upon  at  some  future  time.  2. 
That  it  be  not  delayed  beyond  the  period  which  the  general 
interest  of  the  slaves  themselves  prescribes.  3.  That  all  possible 
means  be  adopted  to  render  freedom  a  good  to  them. 

B.  The  question  may  be  asked,  whether  man  himself  has  the  power  of  sur- 

rendering these  great  natural  rights  at  his  own  option  ? 
1.  With  respect  to  life. 

(1.)  Where  duty  calls,  (as  in  case  of  invasion,  or  when  our  allegiance 

to  Christ  must  otherwise  be  laid  down,)  we  are  not  only  at  liberty 

to  take  the  risk,  but  bound  to  do  it. 


DUTIES   TO   OUR  NEIGHBOUR.  lxxiX 

(2.)  Suicide  was  considered  unlawful  by  the  ancients,  on  the  ground 
of  its  being  a  violation  of  God's  appointment ;  and  modern  ethical 
writers  have  added  little  to  the  force  of  their  doctrines  on  the  sub- 
ject. Of  course  their  views  are  inefficient.  "  Thou  shalt  not 
kill,"  is  the  divine  prohibition  against  killing  ourselves  as  well  as 
others : — not,  "  Thou  shalt  do  no  murder,"  as  Archbishop  Whately 
incorrectly  quotes,  and  then  reasons  upon.  The  crime  of  murder 
lies  in  the  fact  that  man  is  made  in  the  image  of  God — immortal. 
Self-murder  is  unpardonable. 

(3.)  Duelling  involves  the  two  crimes  of  murder  and  suicide. 

2.  With  respect  to  property.     Christianity  teaches  us  that  property  is  a 

trust;  and  that  gambling,  prodigality,  &c,  are  violations  of  that 
trust 

3.  Liberty  cannot  be  voluntarily  parted  with  under  the  Christian  dis- 

pensation. 

C.  The  right  of  conscience  is  now  to  be  considered. 

1.  The  duty  of  religious  worship  and  opinions,  and  the  right  to  the  pro- 

fession of  the  latter  and  practice  of  the  former,  are  strictly  correla- 
tive ;  and  as  the  obligation  to  perform  the  duty  cannot  be  removed, 
so  neither  can  the  right  to  its  performance  be  destroyed. 

2.  But  government  has  authority  to  take  cognizance  of  the  manner  in 

which  this  right  is  exercised,  and  can  interfere  (1,)  where  the  wor- 
ship is  vexatious  to  society  in  general ;  or  (2,)  the  opinions  subversive 
of  the  principles  of  social  order;  or  (3,)  where  dangerous  political 
opinions  are  connected  with  religious  notions. 

3.  The  case  of  those  who  reject  revelation  must  be  considered  on  its  own 

merits.  (P.  542.) 

(1.)  Simple  Deism  may  afford  such  a  plea  of  conscience  as  the  state 
ought  to  admit,  though  rejected  by  a  sound  theologian. 

(2.)  To  Atheism  no  toleration  can  be  extended  by  a  Christian  govern- 
ment ; — for,  a)  jurisprudence  cannot  coexist  with  such  doctrines  ; 
b)  they  are  subversive  of  the  morals  of  the  people ;  and,  c)  no 
conscience  can  be  pleaded  by  their  votaries  for  the  avowal  of 
such  tenets. 


(II.)  Econondcal  justice  respects  those  relations  which  grow  out  of  the  existence 
of  men  in  families. 

1.  Relation  of  husband  and  wife,  founded  on  the  institution  of  marriage. 
(1.)   Obligation  of  marriage.     General,  but  not  imperative,  on  every  man, 
in  all  circumstances.     Exceptions  require  the  justification   of  an 
equal  or  paramount  obligation. 
(2.)  Ends  of  marriage. 

(a.)  To  produce  the  greatest  number  of  healthy  children. 

(b.)  To  fix  the  relations  which  give  rise  to  the  domestic  affections,  etc. 


lxxx  ANALYSIS   OF  WATSON'S   INSTITUTES. 

(c.)  To  prevent  polygamy,  which,  1,  was  forbidden  by  the  original 
law,  although  the  practice  of  the  Jews  may  have  fallen  short  of  it ; 
2,  was  expressly  forbidden  by  Christ  in  his  discourse  with  the 
Pharisees;  3,  is  forbidden  also  by  nature. 

(d.)  To  prevent  fornication,  (p.  545  :)  which  it  does,  1,  by  providing 
for  a  lawful  gratification  of  the  sexual  appetite  ;  2,  by  the  mutual 
love  which  it  presupposes  in  the  parties,  without  which  the  institu- 
tion is  profaned. 
(3.)   Character  of  the  marriage  contract. 

(a.)  It  is  partly  a  civil  contract — being  under  the  control  of  the  State 
for  weighty  reasons. 

(b.)  It  is  also  a  religious  act,  in  which  vows  are  made  to  God  by  the 
contracting  parties.     Though  the  Scriptures  do  not  expressly  as- 
sign its  celebration  to  the  ministers  of  religion,  yet  the  State  has 
wisely  done  it. 
(4.)  Rights  and  duties  of  marriage.     (Pp.  547-550.) 

2.  Duties  of  children.     Comprehensiveness  of  the  precept,  "  Honour  thy 

father  and  thy  mother,"  embracing 
(1.)  Love,  comprising  esteem  and  gratitude. 

(2.)  Reverence,  comprising,  a,)  the  desire  to  please;  b,)  the  fear  to  offend  ; 
c,)  the  external  manifestation  of  these  in  honour  and  civility ;  and, 
d,)  the  support  of  parents  when  in  necessity. 
(3.)   Obedience,  which  is  to  be  universal,  except  in  cases  of  conscience. 
This  rule  is  most  severely  and  frequently  tried  in  regard  to  marriage. 
Here, 
a.)  The  child  is  not  bound  to  marry  at  the  command  of  the  parents, 
b.)  But  should  not  violate  their  prohibition,  except  only  when  the 
parties  are  of  age,  and  then  only  if,  1,)  the  opposition  is  to  a 
child's  marrying  a  religious  person ;  or,  2,)  is  capricious ;  or,  3,) 
is  unreasonable. 

3.  Duties  of  parents.  (P.  553.) 
(1.)  Love,  implying, 

(a.)  The  natural  instinct  of  affection,  cultivated  by  religion, 
(b.)  The  care  and  support  of  offspring. 
(2.)  Instruction,  which  includes, 

(a.)  The  education  of  children  in  a  way  suited  to  their  condition, 
(b.)  Their  training  in  the  "  nurture  and  admonition  of  the  Lord  " — as 

the  parent  is  a  priest  in  his  own  family :  and, 
(c.)  The  affording  them  a  godly  example. 
(3.)   Government,  which  should  be, 
(a.)  Mild  and  gentle. 

(b.)  Firm  and  faithful,  implying  even  the  use  of  corporeal  punishment 
when  necessary. 
(4.)  Provision  for  the  settlement  of  children  in  the  world  is  a  duty  of 
parents,  only  limited  by  their  ability. 


DUTIES   TO   OUR  NEIGHBOUR.  lxxxi 

Duties  of  servant  and  master.  (P.  555.) 

(a.)  This  is  a  relation  which  must  exist,  as  equality  of  condition  is  impos- 
sible. 
(b.)  But  it  is  a  source  of  great  evil,  when  unregulated  by  religion, 
(c.)  The  precepts  of  the  New  Testament  go  to  prevent  this  evil,  by  as- 
signing, 
(1.)  The  duties  of  servants,  viz.,  honour  and  obedience — which  are  to 

be  cheerful  and  from  the  heart. 
(2.)  The  reciprocal  duties  of  servants  and  masters ;  involving  obedience 
on  the  one  part,  and  kindness,  moderation,  and  justice,  on  the 
other ;  and, 
(3.)  The  religious  duties  of  masters,  including — 1.  Religious  instruc- 
tion. 2.  The  observance  of  the  Sabbath.  3.  Existing  influence 
in  favour  of  religion. 


(HI.)  Political  justice. 

1.  Origin  of  power.  (P.  569.) 

(a.)  The  Scriptures  declare  government  to  be  an  ordinance  of  God. 
(b.)  The  doctrine  of  a  "  social  compact "  is  therefore  unscriptural. 
(c.)  Paley's  view,  which  places  the  obligation  in  the  will  of  God,  as  col- 
lected from  expediency,  is  too  loose  :  that  will  is  declared  in  Scripture. 

2.  Rights  and  duties  of  sovereign  and  subject  reciprocal.  (P.  562.) 

(a.)  Duties  of  government, — enactment  of  just  laws,  etc.     Obligation 

grounded  on  direct  passages  of  Scripture.  (Pp.  562,  563.) 
(b.)  Duties  of  subjects, — obedience,  tribute,  prayer,  &c. 

3.  Question,  "  How  far  does  it  consist  with  Christian  submission  to  endea- 

vour to  remedy  the  evils  of  a  government  ?"  (P.  564.) 
(a.)  No  form  of  government  is  enjoined  in  Scripture.     Hence  there  is 

no  divine  right  in  particular  families, 
(b.)  Resistance  to  an  established  government,  whatever  may  be  its  form, 

is  consistent  with  duty  only  in   certain   extreme  cases.   (P.  556.) 

There  are  two  kinds  of  resistance : — 

1.  Of  opinion.    In  order  to  be  lawful,  this  resistance  must  be,  (1)  just ; 

(2)  directed  against  public  acts ;  (3)  practical ;  (4)  deliberate ;  (5) 
not  factious ;  (6)  not  respecting  local  but  general  interests. 

2.  Of  force.     This  may  be  divided  into  two  kinds : — 

(1.)  That  of  a  controlling  force  in  the  government :  e.  g.,  the  British 
Parliament,  which  can  refuse  supplies,  etc.     This  resistance, 
which  is  implied  by  a  constitution,  is  lawful,  when  advisedly 
and  patriotically  employed. 
(2.)  That  of  arms.     Three  cases  may  be  supposed : — 

a.)  Where  the  nation  enjoys  and  values  good  institutions.     Here 
unjust  aggressions  will  not  succeed. 


ixxxii  ANALYSIS  OF  WATSON'S  INSTITUTES. 

b.)  Where  popular  opinion  is  only  partly  enlightened.  Here  the 
work  of  improvement  should  precede  resistance.  Should  the 
despot  triumph,  patriotism  will  suffer.  Should  the  reformers 
triumph,  the  ignorant  mass  run  on  into  licentiousness :  e.  g , 
French  Revolution  and  Parliamentary  War. 
c.)  Where  the  sovereign  power  acts,  by  mercenaries  or  otherwise,  in 
opposition  to  the  views  of  the  majority.  Here  resistance  is  jus- 
tifiable :  e.  g.,  Revolution  of  1688. 

(c.)  The  case  of  rival  governments. 

(d.)  Resistance  for  conscience'  sake. 


PART    FOURTH. 

INSTITUTIONS    OF    CHRISTIANITY 


OUTLINE. 
I.  THE  CHRISTIAN  CHURCH.  Ch.  i. 

H.  THE  SACRAMENTS.  Ch.  ii-iv. 

(I.)      Number  and  nature  of  sacraments,  (Ch.  ii.) 
(H.)     Sacrament  of  baptism,  (Ch.  iii.) 

(III.)  Sacrament  of  Lord's  supper,  (Ch.  iv.) 


I.  THE  CHRISTIAN  CHURCH.  Ch.  i. 

The  Church  of  Christ,  in  its  largest  sense,  consists  of  all  who  have  been  bap- 
tized in  the  name  of  Jesus  Christ ;  in  a  stricter  sense,  it  consists  of  those  who 
are  vitally  united  to  Christ.  Taken  in  either  view,  it  is  a  visible,  permanent 
society,  bound  to  obey  certain  rules ;  and  of  course  government  is  necessarily 
supposed  to  exist  in  it.     We  have  four  points  to  examine  in  this  chapter : — 

I.  The  nature  of  this  government.     It  is  wholly  spiritual,  for, 

1.  It  is  concerned  only  with  spiritual  objects. 

2.  Its  only  punitive  discipline  is  comprised  in  "  admonition,"  "  reproof," 

"  sharp  rebukes,"  and  finally,  "  excision  from  the  society." 

H.  The  persons  to  whom  this  government  is  committed,  (P.  574.)  It  is  necessary 
here  to  consider  the  composition  of  the  primitive  Church,  as  stated  in  the 
New  Testament 

1.  Enunciation  of  offices  in  the  church.  Eph.  iv,  11. 

2.  Whether  the  words  bishop  and  presbyter  express  two  distinct  sacred 

orders,  has  been  a  subject  of  much  controversy.     But  it  may  be  easily 

shown  that  there  is  no  distinction  of  order,  whatever  distinction  of  office 

may  exist. 

(1.)  The  argument  from  the  promiscuous  use  of  these  terms  in  the  New 

Testament  seems  incontrovertible.     Acts  xx,  28 ;  Titus  i,  5 ;  Phil. 

i,  1  ;  2  John  1 ;  &c. 

(2.)  A  distinction  between  bishops  and  presbyters  did  indeed  arise  at  a 

very  early  period ;  but  it  proves  nothing  for  a  superior  order,  nor 


lxxxiv  ANALYSIS   OF  WATSON'S  INSTITUTES. 

for  diocesan  episcopacy ;  for  it  cannot  be  shown  that  the  power  of 

ordination  was  given  to  bishops  to  the  exclusion  of  presbyters  ;  and 

this  early  distinction  may  be  easily  accounted  for. 

a.)  It  became  expedient,  doubtless,  in  the  meetings  of  presbyters,  at  a 

very  early  period,  that  one  should  be  chosen  to  preside  over  the 

rest ;  but  the  practice,  as  testified  subsequently  by  Jerome,  was 

founded  solely  upon  expediency.    It  is  to  be  remembered,  that  the 

primitive  churches  were  formed  very  much  upon  the  model  of  the 

Jewish  synagogues. 

b.)  As  Christianity  made  its  way,  the  concerns  of  the  districts  of  country 

surrounding  cities  naturally  fell  under  the  cognizance  of  the  bishops 

of  those  cities.     Thus  diocesans  arose  ;  subsequently,  metropolitans, 

primates,  patriarchs ;  and  finally  the  pope  came  in.  (Pp.  579-582.) 

(3.)  The  doctrine  of  succession  cannot  be  made  out ;  and  if  it  could, 

would  only  trace  diocesan  bishops  to  the  bishops  of  parishes. 
(4.)  As  for  episcopacy  itself,  it  may  be  freely  allowed  as  a  prudential 
regulation,  wherever  circumstances  require  it.     But  it  may  be  ques- 
tioned whether  presbyters  could  lawfully  surrender  their  rights  of 
government  and  ordination  into  the  hands  of  a  bishop,  without  that 
security  which  arises  from  the  accountability  of  the  administrator. 
(Pp.  582-586.) 
3.  On  the  subject  of  the  church  itself,  very  different  views  have  been  held. 
(1.)  The  Papist  view  contends  for  its  visible  unity  throughout  the  world, 

under  a  visible  head.  (P.  586.) 
(2.)  The  modern  Independent  view  goes  as  far  the  other  way.  (P.  587.) 
The  persons  appointed  to  feed  and  govern  the  church  being,  then,  those 
who  are  called  " pastors"  we  have  now  to  notice, 

III.  The  share  which  the  body  of  the  people  have  in  their  own  government.  (Pp. 
587-596.) 
a.  General  views. 

1.  The  connexion  of  church  and  state  gives  rise  to  questions  of  peculiar 

perplexity  and  difficulty.  We  do  #not  consider  the  church  in  this 
state. 

2.  The  New  Testament  view  of  the  churches  is,  that  they  are  associations 

founded  upon  conviction  of  the  truth  of  Christianity,  and  the  obliga- 
tory nature  of  the  commands  of  Christ ;  and  the  mutual  interdepen- 
dence of  pastors  and  people,  with  perfect  religious  liberty,  is  every- 
where recognized  in  it. 

3.  Questions  of  church  government  are  often  argued  on  the  false  ground 

that  the  governing  power,  in  churches  to  which  communion  is  per- 
fectly voluntary,  is  of  the  same  character  as  when  it  is  connected 
with  the  civil  authority.     Nothing  can  be  more  fallacious. 

4.  In  settling  church  government,  there  are  pre-existing  laws  of  Christ, 

which  cannot  be  neglected  or  set  aside.  The  government  of  the 
church  is  in  its  pastors,  open  to  formal  modifications ;  and  it  is  to  be 


NUMBER  AND   NATURE   OF  THE   SACRAMENTS.  lxxxv 

conducted  with  such  a  concurrence  of  the  people  as  shall  guard 
against  abuse,  without  interfering  with  the  Scriptural  exercise  of  pas- 
toral duties. 
b.  These  views  applied  to  particular  cases. 

(1.)  As  to  the  ordination  of  ministers.     This  power  was  never  conveyed 
,    by  the  people  :  it  was  vested  in  the  ministers  alone,  to  be  exercised 
on  their  responsibility  to  Christ.  (Pp.  590,  591.) 

(2.)  As  to  the  laws  by  which  the  church  is  to  be  governed.  Those  which 
are  explicitly  contained  in  the  New  Testament  are  to  be  executed 
by  the  rulers,  and  obeyed  by  the  people.  (Pp.  591-594.) 

(3.)  Other  disciplinary  regulations  are  matters  of  mutual  agreement ; 
but  democratic  tendencies  are.  to  be  shunned.  (P.  594.) 

(4.)  Power  of  admission  and  expulsion  rests  with  the  pastor,  as  also  that 
of  trying  unworthy  servants.  (P.  595.) 

IV.  The  ends  to  which  church  authority  is  legitimately  directed. 

1.  The  preservation  and  publication  of  sound  doctrine  :  called  by  systematic 

writers,  potestas  doy/ia-iKTj :  which  may  be  thus  summed  up : — 
(1.)  To  declare  the  sense  in  which  the  church  interprets  the  language  of 

Scripture. 
(2.)  To  require  all  its  members  to  examine  such  declarations  of  faith 

with  docility  and  humility ;  while  their  right  of  private  judgment  is 

not  violated. 
(3.)  To  silence  within  its  pale  all  preaching  contrary  to  its  standards. 

2.  The  power  of  regulation  :  called,  technically,  potestas  SiaraKTiKTi. 

3.  The  power  of  inflicting  and  removing  censures  :  potestas  diaxpiTiKTj.  (Pp. 

600-605.) 
(1.)  Undoubtedly  this  power  lies  in  the  church  :  it  has,  however,  been 

sadly  abused. 
(2.)  The  claims  of  the  Romish  Church,  in  this  particular,  are  arrogant 

assumptions :  e.  g.,  views  founded  on  the  gift  of  the  keys  to  St!  Peter. 

The  labour  of  church  government,  and  its  difficulty,  will  always  be  greatly 
mitigated  by  a  steady  regard,  on  the  part  of  both  pastors  and  people,  to 
duties  as  well  as  to  rights.  (P.  605.) 


II.  THE  SACRAMENTS.  Ch.  ii-iv. 

("I.)  NUMBER  AND  NATURE  OF  THE  SACRAMENTS.  (Ch.  ii.) 

I.  Number  of  the  sacraments.     Two  only,  baptism  and  the  Lord's  supper,  are 

instituted  in  the  New  Testament,  and  admitted   by  Protestants ;    the 

Romish  Church  added  five  others. 

1.  The  word  used  by  the  Greek  Fathers  was  fiv^oiov ;  the  Latin  term  is 

sacramentum,  which  signified  (1,)  a  sacred  ceremony,  and  (2,)  the  oath 


Ixxxvi  ANALYSIS   OF  WATSON'S   INSTITUTES. 

of  fidelity  taken  by  the  Roman  soldiers.     For  both  these  reasons,  pro- 
bably, the  term  was  adopted  by  the  Roman  Christians. 
2.  The  sacraments  are  to  be  viewed  as  federal  acts,  which  view  sweeps 
away  the  five  superstitious  additions  of  the  Romish  Church — confirma- 
tion, penance,  orders,  matrimony,  and  extreme  unction. 

II.  Nature  of  the  sacraments.     There  are  three  leading  views.  (P.  608.) 

1.  That  of  the  Church  of  Rome,  gratia  ex  opere  operato,  that  the  sacraments 

contain  the  grace  they  signify,  and  confer  it,  by  the  work  itself.     The 

objections  to  this  doctrine  are, 
(1.)  It  has  no  pretence  of  authority  from  Scripture,  nay, 
(2.)  It  is  decidedly  antiscriptural. 
(3.)  It  debases  the  ordinance  into  a  mere  charm. 
(4.)  It  tends  to  licentiousness. 

(5.)  It  causes  the  virtue  of  the  ordinance  to  depend  upon  the  intention  of 
the  administrator. 

2.  The  opposite  view  is  that  of  the  Socinians,  to  which  some  orthodox  Pro- 

testants have  carelessly  leaned, — that  the  sacraments  are  valuable  solely 
as  emblems  of  the  spiritual  and  invisible.  This  scheme  is  as  defective 
as  that  of  the  Papists  is  excessive. 

3.  The  third  opinion  is  that  of  the  Protestant  churches: — expressed  in  the 

language  (1,)  of  the  Heidelberg  Catechism,  (2,)  of  the  Church  of 
England,  (3,)  of  the  Church  of  Scotland,  containing  the  same  leading 
views,  that  the  sacraments  are  both  signs  and  seals. 

(a.)  Sense  in  which  they  are  signs. 

(b.)  Sense  in  which  they  are  seals. 


(II.)  SACRAMENT  OF  BAPTISM.  (Ch.  iii.) 

The  obligation  of  baptism  rests  upon  (1,)  the  example  of  our  Lord;  (2,)  his 
command  to  the  apostles,  Matthew  xxviii,  19;  (3,)  upon  the  practice  of 
the  apostles  themselves. 

I.  The  nature  of  baptism. 

a.  The  Romanists  consider  baptism  by  a  priest  as  of  itself  applying  the 

merits  of  Christ  to  the  person  baptized  ;  and  from  this  view  arises  their 
distinction  between  sins  committed  before  and  after  baptism.  The 
Lutheran  Church  places  the  efficacy  of  this  sacrament  in  regeneration  ; 
nor  has  the  Church  of  England  departed  entirely  from  the  terms  used 
by  the  Romish  Church.  The  Quakers  reject  the  rite  altogether ;  and 
the  Socinians  merely  regard  it  as  a  mode  of  professing  the  religion  of 
Christ. 

b.  The  orthodox  view  is,  that  baptism  is  a  federal  transaction.  (P.  614.) 

It  is  of  great  importance  to  establish  the  covenant  character  of  this 
ordinance. 
1.)  The  covenant  with  Abraham,  Gen.  xvii,  7,  was  the  general  covenant 


SACRAMENT  OF  BAPTISM.  lxxxvii 

of  grace,  and  not  chiefly  a  political  and  national  covenant  There 
are  Jive  distinct  stipulations,  under  which — though  they  were  pro- 
mises of  temporal  advantages — are  conveyed  a  higher  and  spiritual 
covenant  of  grace. 

(2.)  Circumcision  was  its  "  sign  and  seal,"  both  temporally  and  spiritually. 

(3.)  As  a  seal  of  restriction,  circumcision  was  done  away  by  Christ. 
(P.  617.) 

(4.)  Paul's  different  views  of  circumcision  may  be  explained  by  con- 
sidering the  different  principles  on  which  circumcision  might  be 
practised  after  it  had  become  an  obsolete  ordinance — 1,  2,  3,  4. 
(Pp.  618,  619.) 

(5.)  Baptism  is,  to  the  new  covenant,  what  circumcision  was  to  the  old, 
and  took  its  place  by  the  appointment  of  God.  (P.  620.)  This  may 
be  argued,  1.  From  our  Lord's  commission  to  the  apostles,  Matthew 
xxviii,  19;  Mark  xvi,  15,  16.  2.  From  the  words  of  our  Lord  to 
Nicodemus,  "Except  a  man  be  born,"  &c.  (P.  621.)  3.  From  Col. 
ii,  10-12,  "And  ye  are  complete  in  him,"  &c.  (P.  621.)  4.  From 
Gal.  iii,  27-29,  "  For  as  many  of  you  as  have  been  baptized,"  &c. 
(P.  622.)  5.  From  1  Pet.  iii,  20 :  "  Which  some  time  were  disobe- 
dient," &c.  (P.  622.) 

a.  Baptism  is  here  called  the  antitype  of  Noah's  salvation  by  the  ark, 

because  his  building  and  entering  it  were  the  visible  expression 
of  his  faith. 

b.  The  meaning  of  the  passage  will  vary  with  the  rendering  of  the 

word  eTreguTTjfia ;  but 

c.  However  that  word  is  rendered,  the  whole  text  shows  that  baptism, 

when  an  act  of  true  faith,  becomes  an  instrument  of  salvation. 
(6.)  Baptism,  both  as  a  sign  and  seal,  presents  an  entire  correspondence 
to  the  ancient  rite  of  circumcision.  (Pp.  625-629.) 

1.  As  a  sign.     Circumcision  exhibited  the  placability  of  God ;    held 

out  the  promise  of  justification  ;  and  was  the  sign  of  sanctification  : 
so  baptism  exhibits  the  divine  placability ;  is  the  initiatory  rite  into 
the  covenant  of  pardon  ;  and  is  the  symbol  of  regeneration.  But 
baptism  as  a  sign,  is  more  than  circumcision,  implying  the  out- 
pouring of  the  Holy  Spirit  in  its  fulness. 

2.  As  a  seal.     As  in  circumcision  blessings  were  pledged  on  the  part  of 

God,  so  in  baptism  are  all  spiritual  gifts  pledged ;  and  as  in  cir- 
cumcision a  holy  life  was  promised  on  the  part  of  the  believer,  so  in 
baptism  do  we  pledge  ourselves  to  the  obedience  of  Christ. 
Booth's  objection,  and  the  reply. 

II.  Subjects  of  baptism. 

a.  All  adults  who  possess  faith  in  Christ.  (P.  629.) 

b.  Infant  children.     The  practice  of  infant  baptism  may  be  shown  to  rest 

upon  the  strongest  basis  of  Scriptural  authority. 
(1.)  Infants  were  circumcised  ;  baptism  takes  the  place  of  circumcision ; 


lxxxviii  ANALYSIS   OF  WATSON'S  INSTITUTES. 

therefore  the  absence  of  an  explicit  exclusion  of  infants  is  sufficient 
proof  of  their  title  to  baptism. 
(2.)  The  fact  that  the  baptism  of  infants  is  nowhere  prohibited  in  the 
New  Testament,  must  have  been  misleading  to  all  men,  and  especially 
to  Jewish  believers,  if  it  were  not  proper. 

1.  Baptisms  were  common  among  the  Jews;  their  proselyte  baptism 

was  a  baptism  of  families,  and  comprehended  their  infant  children. 
(Pp.  631-633.) 

2.  The  words  of  Peter  at  the  Pentecost,  "  Repent,  and  be  baptized  ; 

for  the  promise  is  unto  you  and  to  your  children,"  could  nQt  have- 
been  understood  by  the  Jews  except  as  calling  upon  them  and 
their  children  to  be  baptized.     Reasons,  1,  2,  3.  (Pp.  633-635.) 
(3.)  Infant  children  are  declared  by  Christ  to  be  members  of  his  Church. 
(Pp.  635-639.) 

1.  They  were  so  under  the  old  dispensation,  and  no  change  was  made. 
(P.  635.) 

2.  We  have  our  Lord's  direct  testimony  to  this  point — in  two  remark- 

able passages:  a)  Luke  ix,  47,  48  ;   b)  Mark  x,  14.     Notice  the 
Baptist  evasions  of  the  argument  from  this  latter  passage.  (Pp. 
636-639.) 
(4.)  The  argument  from  apostolic  practice  next  offers  itself. 
As  to  the  absence  of  any  express  mention  of  infant  baptism,  instead  of 
bearing  in  favour  of  the  Baptists,  it  is  a  strong  argument  against 
them;  for  such  an  extraordinary  alteration  as  the  forbidding  of  in- 
fant baptism  would  have  required  particular  explanation.     The  bap- 
tisms of  luhole  houses,  mentioned  in  the  Acts,  are  sufficient  proof  of 
the  apostolic  practice;   they  were  either  (1)  instances  of  apostolic 
action,  which  would  cover  the  whole  ground,  or  (2)  peculiar  cases ; 
and  even  if  this  latter  be  admitted,  the  Baptist  must  still  show,  that 
neither  in  the  family  of 

1.  The  Philippian  jailer,  (p.  640,)  nor  in  that  of 

2.  Lydia,  (p.  641,)  nor  yet  in  that  of 

3.  Stephanas,  (1  Cor.  i,  16,)  (p.  642,)  were  there  any  infants   at  all, 

which,  to  say  the  least  of  it,  is  very  improbable. 
(5.)  The  last  argument  may  be  drawn  from  the  antiquity  of  the  practice 
of  infant  baptism.  (Pp.  644-646.) 

1.  We  have  strong  presumptive  proof  of  its  antiquity  in  the  fact,  that 

if  it  were  ever  introduced  as  an  innovation,   it  was  introduced 
without  controversy ! 

2.  Tertullian  (second  century)  was  the  only  ancient  writer  who  op- 

posed infant  baptism  ;  but  his  very  opposition  proves  the  practice 
older  than  himself:  he  never  speaks  of  its  novelty. 

3.  Justin  Martyr,  Irenasus,  and  Origen,  mention  infant  baptism  as  the 

practice  of  their  times  ;  and  in  A.  D.  254  the  question  of  deferring 
baptism  to  the  eighth  day  was  discussed.  (P.  645.) 

4.  The  Anabaptists  are  of  modern  origin.  (P.  646.) 


SACRAMENT   OF  BAPTISM.  lxxxix 

III.  Benefits  of  baptism. 

1.  To  the  adult  believer  it  is,  (1)  the  sign  of  his  admission  into  the  cove- 

nant of  grace  ;  (2)  the  seal,  on  the  part  of  God,  of  the  fulfilment  of  all 
its  provisions ;  (3)  the  pledge,  on  his  own  part,  of  steadfast  faith  and 
obedience. 

2.  To  the  infant  it  conveys  a  pledge  of  divine  grace  ;  the  present  blessing 

of  Christ ;  the  gift  of  the  Holy  Spirit;  and  the  respect  which  God  has 
to  the  believing  act  of  the  parents. 

3.  To  the  parents  it  is  a  blessing  also. 

IV.  Mode  of  baptism.  This  is  comparatively  of  little  moment,  but  has  been 
the  subject  of  much  controversy.  In  considering  the  doctrine,  that  the 
only  legitimate  mode  of  baptizing  is  by  immersion,  we  notice, 

a.  Several  presumptions  against  it.  (Pp.  647,  648.) 
(1.)  It  is  not  expressly  enjoined. 

(2.)  It  is  unsuitable  to  many  climates  and  circumstances ;  nay,  sometimes 
impossible. 

(8.)  It  puts  away  the  consideration  of  health  and  life  in  many  cases. 

(4.)  It  is  likely  to  distract  the  thoughts. 

(5.)  It  is  improbable  that  the  three  thousand  converts  on  the  day  of  Pen- 
tecost were  immersed,  or  that  the  jailer's  family  were. 

(6.)  The  practice  is  not  a  decent  one. 

b.  The  argument  from  antiquity.  (Pp.  648-650.) 

(1.)  Immersion  is  ancient, — so  is  anointing  with  oil,  &c. 

(2.)  Aspersion  and  affusion  are  also  ancient, — witness  Tertullian,  Cyprian, 

Gennadius,  Aquinas,  Erasmus. 
(3.)  The  baptism  of  naked  subjects  was  ancient, — doubtless  a  superstitious 

extension  of  the  original  rite. 

c.  The  argument  from  the  New  Testament.  (Pp.  650-660.) 
(1.)  Use  of  the  word  ;ia-ri^u. 

1.  The  verb,  with  its  derivatives,  signifies  either  to  dip,  stain,  wet  with 

dew,  &c. 

2.  Employment  of  it  in  Scripture  illustrated  by  various  passages: — 

2  Kings  iii,  1 1  ;  Euke  vii,  44  ;  Dan.  iv,  33  ;  1  Cor.  x,  2.    It  is  use'd 
generally  in  the  New  Testament  to  express  the  act  of  pouring  or 
sprinkling  water. 
(2.)  Cases  of  baptism  (in  the  New  Testament)  adduced  commonly  in 
proof  of  immersion. 
1.  John's  baptism,  (p.  652,)  "  They  were  baptized  of  him  in  Jordan," 
therefore  they  were  immersed,  is  the  argument.     But, 
(a.)  The  object  of  this  passage  was  to  declare  the  place,  not  the 

mode  of  John's  baptism, 
(b.)  The  "baptism  with  the  Holy  Ghost"  sufficiently  illustrates  the 
mode  of  John's  baptism,  the  same  form  of  words  being  used  in 
regard  to  both. 
Vol.  I.— 1 


XC  ANALYSIS   OF  WATSONS  INSTITUTES. 

(c.)  The  character  of  the  river,  and  the  scarcity  of  water,  accounts 
for  the  place  of  baptism,  and  for  the  language  employed  here  to 
fix  it.  (Pp.  G53,  654.)  River  baptism  does  not  necessarily  im- 
ply immersion.     Quotation  from  Wolfe. 

2.  Our  Lord's  baptism.     "  He  went  up  straightway  out  of  the  water." 

Matthew  iii,  16.  This  does  not  favour  immersion  more  than  any 
other  mode  of  baptism. 

3.  The  eunuch's  baptism.     "  And  when  they  were  come  up  out  of  the 

water,"  &c.  Acts  viii,  38.  If  this  proves  any  immersion,  it  proves 
that  Philip  was  immersed  as  well  as  the  eunuch.  But  hr  and  etc 
do  not  necessarily  mean  into  and  out  of. 

4.  Baptism  by  Jesus  and  by  John  in  JEnon,  John  iii,  22.     No  proof 

of  immersion. 
(3.)  Argument  from  Romans  vi,  3,  4  :  "  Therefore  vre  are  buried  with 
him  by  baptism,"  &c.     Here  the  Baptists  suppose  a  comparison  is 
instituted  between  the  burial  of  Christ  and  immersion.     But, 

1.  If  such  resemblance  be  intended  by  "buried,"  why  not  also  by 

"  planted  "  and  "  crucified,"  both  which  terms  are  used  in  the 
same  connexion?  (P.  657.) 

2.  The  type  of  our  death,  burial,  and  resurrection  as  believers,  in  this 

passage,  is  not  the  clumsy  one  of  immersion ;  but  the  death,  burial, 

and  resurrection  of  our  Lord.  (Pp.  657-659.) 
We  conclude,  therefore,  that  the  pouring  out  of  water  was  the  apostolic 
mode  of  administering  the  ordinance,  and  that  washing  and  immer- 
sion were  introduced  later,  along  with  other  superstitious  additions 
to  this  sacrament. 


(III.)  SACRAMENT  OF  LORD'S  SUPPER.  (Ch.  iv.) 

Agreement  and  diffei-enee  between  baptism  and  the  Lord's  supper,  as  stated 
in  the  Catechism  of  the  Church  of  Scotland.     We  notice  now, 

I.  The  institution  of  tlte  ordinance. 

1.  As  baptism  took  the  place  of  circumcision,  so  the  Lord's  supper  was  in- 

stituted in  place  of  the  passovcr. 

2.  It  was  instituted  by  Christ,  immediately  after  celebrating  the  passover 

for  the  last  time  with  his  disciples. 

II.  Its  perpetuity  and  obligation.  (P.  661.)     From  1  Cor.  xi,  23-26,  we  learn, 

1.  That  Paul  received  a  special  revelation  as  to  this  ordinance. 

2.  That  the  command  of  Christ,  "  This  do  in  remembrance  of  me,"  was 

laid  by  Paul  upon  the  Corinthians. 

3.  That  he  regarded  the  Lord's  supper  as  a  rite  to  be  often  celebrated. 

III.  Its  nature. 

1.  Various  views  of 

(1.)  The  Church  of  Rome,  which  held  the  doctrine  of  transubstantiation ; 


SACRAMENT  OF  LORD'S  SUPPER.  XC1 

of  an  intrinsic  value  in  the  elements  themselves;  of  the  elements 
being  proper  objects  of  worship  and  homage  ;  and  of  the  cup  being 
withheld  from  the  laity. 

(2.)  Luther,  who  held  that  though  the  bread  and  wine  remain  unchanged, 
the  body  and  blood  of  Christ  are  received  together  with  them:  the 
doctrine  of  consubstantiation. 

(3.)  Carolostadt  and  Zuingle,  who  taught  that  the  bread  and  wine  aro 
the  signs  of  the  absent  body  and  blood  of  Christ.  This  view  is 
adopted,  with  some  liberality,  by  the  Socinians. 

(4.)  The  Reformed  Churches,  which  reject  both  transubstantiation  and 
consubstantiation,  but  go  further  than  the  Socinians,  in  declaring 
that  to  all  who  remember  Christ  worthily,  he  is  spiritually  present  in 
the  sacrament. 
2.  Sacramental  character  of  the  ordinance.  (P.  667.) 

(1.)  As  to  Christ.  The  words,  "  This  is  my  body,"  &c,  show  that  the 
Lord's  supper  is  a  visible  sign  that  the  covenant  was  ratified  by  the 
sacrificial  death  of  Christ. 

(2.)  As  to  the  recipients.  It  is  a  recognition  of  their  faith  in  the  sacrifi- 
cial death  of  Christ. 

(3.)  As  a  sign,  it  exhibits,  a)  the  love  of  God,  b)  the  love  of  Christ,  c) 
the  extreme  nature  of  his  sufferings,  d)  the  vicarious  character  of 
his  death,  e)  the  benefits  derived  from  it  through  faith. 

(4.)  As  a  seal,  it  is,  a)  a  pledge  of  the  continuance  of  God's  covenant, 
b)  a  pledge  to  each  believer  of  God's  mercies,  c)  an  exhibition  of 
Christ  as  the  spiritual  food  of  the  soul,  d)  a  renewed  assurance  of 
divine  grace. 

IV.  General  observations. 

1 .  The  ordinance  excludes,  not  only  open  unbelievers,  but  all  who  deny  the 

atonement. 

2.  All  are  discpialified  who  do  not  give  evidence  of  genuine  repentance  and 

desire  for  salvation. 

3.  Every  church  should  shut  out  such  persons  by  discipline. 

4.  But  the  table  of  the  Lord  is  not  to  be  surrounded  with  superstitious  ter- 

rors. 

5.  There  is  no  rule  as  to  the  frequency  of  celebrating  the  ordinance. 

6.  Its  habitual  neglect  by  professing  Christians  is  highly  censurable. 


PART  FIRST.  ... 

EVIDENCES  OF  THE  DIVINE  AUTHORITY  OF  THE 
HOLY  SCRIPTURES. 


CHAPTER  I. 

Man  a  moral  Agent. 

The  theological  system  of  the  Holy  Scriptures  being  the  subject  ot 
our  inquiries,  it  is  essential  to  our  undertaking  to  establish  their  Divine 
authority.  But  before  the  direct  evidence  which  the  case  admits  is 
adduced,  our  attention  may  be  profitably  engaged  by  several  consider- 
ations, which  afford  presumptive  evidence  in  favour  of  the  revelations  of 
the  Old  and  New  Testaments.  These  are  of  so  much  weight  that  they 
ought  not,  in  fairness,  to  be  overlooked ;  nor  can  their  force  be  easily 
resisted  by  the  impartial  inquirer. 

The  moral  agency  of  man  is  a  principle  on  which  much  depends  in 
such  an  investigation  ;  and,  from  its  bearing  upon  the  question  at  issue, 
requires  our  first  notice. 

He  is  a  moral  agent  who  is  capable  of  performing  moral  actions  ;  and 
an  action  is  rendered  moral  by  two  circumstances, — that  it  is  voluntary, — 
and  that  it  has  respect  to  some  rule  which  determines  it  to  be  good  or 
evil.  "  Moral  good  and  evil,"  says  Locke,  "  is  the  conformity  or  dis- 
agreement of  our  voluntary  actions  to  some  law,  whereby  good  or  evil 
is  drawn  upon  us  from  the  will  or  power  of  the  law  maker." 

The  terms  found  in  all  languages,  and  the  laws  which  have  been 
enacted  in  all  states  with  accompanying  penalties,  as  well  as  the  praise 
or  dispraise  which  men  in  all  ages  have  expressed  respecting  the  conduct 
of  each  other,  sufficiently  show  that  man  has  always  been  considered  as 
an  agent  actually  performing,  or  capable  of  performing  moral  actions, 
for  as  such  he  has  been  treated.  No  one  ever  thought  of  making  laws 
to  regulate  the  conduct  of  the  inferior  animals  ;  or  of  holding  them  up. 
to  public  censure  or  approbation. 

The  rules  by  which  the  moral  quality  of  actions  has  been  determined 
are,  however,  not  those  only  which  have  been  embodied  in  the  legisla- 
tion of  civil  communities.  Many  actions  would  be  judged  good  or  evil, 
were  all  civil  codes  abolished ;  and  others  are  daily  condemned  or 
approved  in  the  judgment  of  mankind,  which  are  not  of  a  kind  to  be 
recognized  by  public  laws.  Of  the  moral  nature  of  human  actions  there 
must  have  been  a  perception  in  the  minds  of  men,  previous  to  the  enact- 


6  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

n'O'it  of  L'vs.  Upon  this  common  perception  all  law  is  founded,  and 
claims  the  consent  and  support  of  society  ;  for  in  all  human  legislative 
codes  tueve  is  an  express  or  tacit  appeal  to  principles  previously  acknow- 
ledged, as  reasons  for  their  enactment. 

This  distinction  in  the  moral  quality  of  actions  previous  to  the  esta- 
blishment of  civil  regulations,  and  independent  of  them,  may  in  part  be 
traced  to  its  having  been  observed,  that  certain  actions  are  injurious 
to  society,  and  that  to  abstain  from  them  is  essential  to  its  well  being. 
Murder  and  theft  may  be  given  as  instances.  It  has  also  been  perceived, 
that  such  actions  result  from  certain  affections  of  the  mind  ;  and  the  in- 
dulgence or  restraint  of  such  affections  has  therefore  been  also  regarded 
as  a  moral  act.  Anger,  revenge,  and  cupidity,  have  been  deemed  evils  as 
the  sources  of  injuries  of  various  kinds  ;  and  humanity,  self  government, 
and  integrity,  have  been  ranked  among  the  virtues  ;  and  thus  both  cer- 
tain actions,  and  the  principles  from  which  they  spring,  have,  from  their 
effect  upon  society,  been  determined  to  be  good  or  evil. 

But  it  has  likewise  been  observed  by  every  man,  that  individual  hap- 
piness, as  truly  as  social  order  and  interests,  is  materially  affected  by 
particular  acts,  and  by  those  feelings  of  the  heart  which  give  rise  to 
them ;  as  for  instance,  by  anger,  malice,  envy,  impatience,  cupidity,  dec ; 
and  that  whatever  civilized  men  in  all  places  and  in  all  ages  have  agreed 
to  call  vice,  is  inimical  to  health  of  body,  or  to  peace  of  mind,  or  to  both. 
This,  it  is  true,  has  had  little  influence  upon  human  conduct ;  but  it  has 
been  acknowledged  by  the  poets,  sages,  and  satirists  of  all  countries,  and 
is  adverted  to  as  matter  of  universal  experience.  While  therefore  there 
is  in  the  moral  condition  and  habits  of  man  something  which  propels 
him  to  vice,  uncorrected  by  the  miseries  which  it  never  fails  to  inflict, 
there  is  also  something  in  the  constitution  of  the  human  soul  which  ren- 
ders vice  subversive  of  its  happiness,  and  something  in  the  established 
law  and  nature  of  things,  which  renders  vice  incompatible  with  the  col- 
lective interests  of  men  in  the  social  state. 

Let  that  then  be  granted  by  the  Theist  which  he  cannot  consistently 
deny,  the  existence  of  a  Supreme  Creator,  of  infinite  power,  wisdom, 
goodness,  and  justice,  who  has  both  made  men  and  continues  to  govern 
them ;  and  the  strongest  presumption  is  afforded  by  the  very  constitution 
of  the  nature  of  man,  and  the  relations  established  among  human  affairs, 
which  with  so  much  constancy  dissociate  happiness  from  vicious  pas- 
sions, health  from  intemperance,  the  peace,  security,  and  improvement 
of  society  from  violence  and  injustice, — that  the  course  of  action  which 
best  secures  human  happiness,  has  the  sanction  of  His  will,  or  in  other 
words  that  He,  by  these  circumstances,  has  given  his  authority  in  favour 
of  the  practice  of  virtue,  and  opposed  it  to  the  practice  of  vice.  (1) 

(1)  "  As  the  manifold  appearances  of  design  and  of  final  causes,  in  the  con- 
stitution of  the  world,  prove  it  to  bo  the  work  of  an  intelligent  mind ;   so  the 


FIRST]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  7 

But  though  that  perception  of  the  difference  of  moral  actions  which 
is  antecedent  to  human  laws,  must  have  been  strongly  confirmed  by 
these  facts  of  experience,  and  by  such  observations,  we  have  no  reason 
to  conclude  that  those  rules  by  which  the  moral  quality  of  actions  has, 
in  all  ages,  been  determined,  were  formed  solely  from  a  course  of  ob- 
servation on  their  tendency  to  promote  or  obstruct  human  happiness  ; 
because  we  cannot  collect  either  from  history  or  tradition,  that  the  world 
was  ever  without  such  rules,  though  they  were  often  warped  and  cor- 
ruptcd.  The  evidence  of  both,  on  the  contrary,  shows,  that  so  far  from 
these  rules  having  originated  from  observing  what  was  injurious  and 
what  beneficial  to  mankind,  there  has  been,  among  almost  all  nations, 
a  constant  reference  to  a  declared  will  of  the  Supreme  God,  or  of  sup- 
posed deities,  as  the  rule  which  determines  the  good  or  the  evil  of  the 
conduct  of  men ;  which  will  was  considered  by  them  as  a  law,  prescrib- 
ing the  one  and  restraining  the  other  under  the  sanction,  not  only  of 
our  being  left  to  the  natural  injurious  consequences  of  vicious  habit 
and  practice  in  the  present  life,  or  of  continuing  to  enjoy  the  benefits 
of  obedience  in  personal  and  social  happiness  here ;  but  of  positive  re- 
ward and  positive  punishment  in  a  future  life. 

Whoever  speculated  on  the  subject  of  morals  and  moral  obligation  in 
any  age,  was  previously  furnished  with  these  general  notions  and  dis- 
tinctions. They  were  in  the  world  before  him ;  and  if  all  tradition  be 
not  a  fable,  if  the  testimony  of  all  antiquity,  whether  found  in  poets  or 
historians,  be  not  delusive,  they  were  in  the  world  in  those  early  periods 
when  the  great  body  of  the  human  race  remained  near  the  original  seat 
of  the  parent  families  of  all  the  modern  and  now  widely  extended  nations 
of  the  earth ;  and  in  those  early  periods  they  were  not  regarded  as  dis- 
tinctions of  mere  human  opinion  and  consent,  but  were  invested  with 
a  Divine  autliority. 

We  have  then  before  us  two  presumptions,  each  of  great  weight. 
First,  that  those  actions  which  among  men  have  almost  universally  been 
judged  good,  have  the  implied  sanction  of  the  will  of  our  wise  and  good 
Creator  being  found  in  experience,  and  by  the  constitution  of  our  nature 
and  •  »f  human  society,  most  conducive  to  human  happiness.  And,  second, 
that  (hey  were  originally  in  some  mode  or  other  prescribed  and  enjoined 
as  his  Jaw,  and  their  contraries  prohibited. 

If  therefore  there  is  presumptive  evidence  of  only  ordinary  strength, 

particular  final  causes  of  pleasure  and  pain,  distributed  among  his  creatures,  prove 
that  they  are  under  his  government — what  may  be  called  his  natural  government 
of  creatures  endued  with  sense  and  reason.  This,  however,  implies  somewhat 
more  than  seems  usually  attended  to  when  we  speak  of  God's  natural  government 
of  the  world.  It  implies  government  of  the  very  same  kind  with  that  which  a 
master  exercises  over  his  servants,  or  a  civil  magistrate  over  his  subjects." — 
{Bishop  Butlkr.) 


8  THEOLOGICAL   INSTITUTES.  [PART 

that  the  rule  by  which  our  actions  are  determined  to  be  good  or  evil  is 
primarily  a  law  of  the  Creator,  we  are  all  deeply  interested  in  ascertain- 
ing where  that  law  exists  in  its  cleax-est  manifestation.  For  ignorance 
of  the  law,  in  whole  or  in  part,  will  be  no  excuse  for  disobedience,  if  we 
have  the  opportunity  of  acquainting  ourselves  with  it ;  and  an  accurate 
acquaintance  with  the  rule  may  assist  our  practice  in  cases  of  which 
human  laws  take  no  cognizance,  and  which  the  wilfully  corrupted  general 
judgment  of  mankind  may  have  darkened.  And  should  it  appear  either 
that  in  many  things  we  have  offended  more  deeply  than  we  suspect, 
whether  wilfully  or  from  an  evitable  ignorance  ;  or  that,  from  some 
common  accident  which  has  befallen  our  nature,  we  have  lost  the  power 
of  entire  obedience  without  the  use  of  new  and  extraordinary  means,  the 
knowledge  of  the  rule  is  of  the  utmost  consequence  to  us,  because  by  it 
we  may  be  enabled  to  ascertain  the  precise  relation  in  which  we  stand 
to  God  our  Maker ;  the  dangers  we  have  incurred ;  and  the  means  of 
escape,  if  any  have  been  placed  within  our  reach. 


CHAPTER  II. 

The  Rule,  wJiich  determines  the  Quality  of  moral  Actions,  must  be 
presumed  to  be  matter  of  Revelation  from  God. 

It  is  well  observed  by  a  judicious  writer,  that  "  all  the  distinctions  of 
good  and  evil  refer  to  some  principle  above  ourselves ;  for,  were  there 
no  Supreme  Governor  and  Judge  to  reward  and  punish,  the  very  notions 
of  good  and  evil  would  vanish  away  :  they  could  not  exist  in  the  minds 
of  men,  if  there  were  not  a  Supreme  Director  to  give  laws  for  the 
measure  thereof."     (Ellis's  Knowledge  of  Divine  Things,  <$fc.) 

If  we  deny  the  existence  of  a  Divine  law  obligatory  upon  man,  we 
must  deny  that  the  world  is  under  Divine  government,  for  government 
without  rule  or  law  is  a  solecism ;  and  to  deny  the  Divine  government, 
would  leave  it  impossible  for  us  to  account  for  that  peculiar  nature  which 
has  been  given  to  man,  and  those  relations  among  human  concerns  and 
interests  to  which  we  have  adverted,  and  which  are  so  powerfully  affected 
by  our  conduct : — certain  actions  and  habits  which  almost  all  mankind 
have  agreed  to  call  good,  being  connected  with  the  happiness  of  the 
individual,  and  the  well  being  of  society ;  and  so  on  the  contrary.  This 
too  has  been  matter  of  uniform  and  constant  experience  from  the  earliest 
ages,  and  warrants  therefore  the  conclusion,  that  the  effect  arises  from 
original  principles  and  a  constitution  of  things  which  the  Creator  has 
established.  Nor  can  any  reason  be  offered  why  such  a  nature  should 
be  given  to  man,  and  such  a  law  impressed  on  the  circumstances  and 
beings  with  which  he  is  surrounded,  except  that  both  had  an  intended 


tf 


FIRST.]  THEOLOGICAL   INSTITUTES.  9 

relation  to  certain  courses  of  action  as  the  sources  of  order  and  happiness, 
as  truly  as  there  was  an  intended  relation  between  the  light  and  the  eye 
which  is  formed  to  receive  its  rays. 

But  as  man  is  not  carried  to  this  course  of  action  by  physical  impulse 
or  necessity ;  as  moral  conduct  supposes  choice  and  therefore  instruc- 
tion, and  the  persuasion  of  motives  arising  out  of  it ;  the  benevolent  in- 
tention of  the  Creator  as  to  our  happiness  could  not  be  accomplished 
without  instruction,  warning,  reward,  and  punishment ;  all  of  which 
necessarily  imply  superintendence  and  control,  or,  in  other  words,  a 
moral  government.  The  creation  therefore  of  a  being  of  such  a  nature 
as  man,  implies  Divine  government,  and  that  government  a  Divine  law.  1* 

Such  a  law  must  be  the  subject  of  kevelation.  Law  is  the  will  of 
a  superior  power  ;  but  the  will  of  a  superior  visible  power  cannot  be 
known  without  some  indication  by  words  or  signs,  in  other  terms,  with- 
out  a  revelation  ;  and  much  less  the  will  of  an  invisible  power,  of  an 
order  superior  to  our  own,  and  confessedly  mysterious  in  his  mode  of 
existence,  and  the  attributes  of  his  nature. 

Again,  the  will  of  a  superior  is  not  in  justice  binding  until,  in  some 
mode,  it  is  sufficiently  declared ;  and  the  presumption,  therefore,  that 
God  wills  the  practice  of  any  particular  course  of  action,  on  the  part  of 
his  creatures,  establishes  the  farther  presumption,  that  of  that  will  there 
has  been  a  manifestation  ;  and  the  more  so  if  there  is  reason  to  suppose 
that  any  penalty  of  a  serious  nature  has  been  attached  to  disobedience. 

The  revelation  of  this  will  or  law  of  God  may  be  made  either  by 
action,  from  which  it  is  to  be  inferred;  or  by  direct  communication  in 
language.  Any  indication  of  the  moral  perfections  of  God,  or  of  his 
design  in  forming  moral  beings,  which  the  visible  creation  presents  to 
the  mind ;  or  any  instance  of  his  favour  or  displeasure  toward  his  crea- 
tures clearly  and  frequently  connected  in  his  administration  with  any 
particular  course  of  conduct,  may  be  considered  as  a  revelation  of  his 
will  by  action ;  and  is  not  at  all  inconsistent  with  a  farther  revelation  by 
the  direct  means  of  language. 

The  Theist  admits  that  a  revelation  of  the  will  of  God  has  been  made 
by  significant  actions,  from  which  the  duty  of  creatures  is  to  be  inferred, 
and  contends  that  this  is  sufficient.  "  They  who  never  heard  of  any 
external  revelation,  yet  if  they  knew  from  the  nature  of  things  what  is  fit 
for  them  to  do,  they  know  all  that  God  will  or  can  require  of  them."  (2) 

They  who  believe  that  the  Holy  Scriptures  contain  a  revelation  of 
God's  will,  do  not  deny  that  indications  of  his  will  have  been  made  by 

(2)  Christianity  as  Old  as  the  Creation,  p.  233. — "  By  employing  our  reason 
to  collect  the  will  of  God  from  the  fund  of  our  nature,  physical  and  moral,  we 
may  acquire  not  only  a  particular  knowledge  of  those  laws  which  arc  d:  ducible 
from  them,  but  a  general  knowledge  of  the  manner  in  which  God  is  pleased  to 
exercise  his  supreme  powers  in  this  system."  (Bolinobroke's  Works,  vol.  v,  p.  100.) 


10  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

action;  but  they  contend  that  they  are  in  themselves  imperfect  and  in- 
sufficient, and  that  they  were  not  designed  to  supersede  a  direct  reve- 
lation. They  hold  also,  that  a  direct  communication  of  the  Divine  will 
was  made  to  the  progenitors  of  the  human  race,  which  received  addi- 
tions at  subsequent  periods,  and  that  the  whole  was  at  length  embodied 
in  the  book  called,  by  way  of  eminence,  "The  Bible." 

The  question  immediately  before  us  is,  on  which  side  there  is  the 
strongest  presumption  of  truth.  Are  there,  in  the  natural  works  of  God, 
or  in  his  manner  of  governing  the  world,  such  indications  of  the  will  of 
God  concerning  us,  as  can  afford  sufficient  direction  in  forming  a  per- 
#r  fectly  virtuous  character,  and  sufficient  information  as  to  the  means  by 
which  it  is  to  be  effected  1  We  may  try  this  question  by  a  few  obviou3 
instances. 

The  Theist  will  himself  acknowledge,  that  temperance,  justice,  and 
benevolence,  are  essential  to  moral  virtue.  With  respect  to  the  first, 
nothing  appears  in  the  constitution  of  nature,  or  in  the  proceedings  of 
the  Divine  administration,  to  indicate  it  to  be  the  will  of  God  that  the 
appetites  of  the  body  should  be  restrained  within  the  rules  of  sobriety, 
except  that,  by  a  connection  which  has  been  established  by  him,  the 
excessive  indulgence  of  those  appetites  usually  impairs  health.  If  there- 
fore we  suppose  this  to  amount  to  a  tacit  prohibition  of  excess,  it  still 
leaves  those  free  from  the  rule  whose  firm  constitutions  do  not  suffer 
from  intemperate  gratifications ;  it  gives  one  rule  for  the  man  of  vigor- 
ous, and  another  for  the  man  of  feeble  health  ;  and  it  is  no  guard  against 
that  occasional  insobriety  which  may  be  indulged  in  without  obvious 
danger  to  health,  but  which  nevertheless  may  be  excessive  in  degree 
though  occasional  in  recurrence.     The  rule  is  therefore  imperfect. 

Nor  are  the  obligations  of  justice  in  this  way  indicated  with  adequate 
clearness.  Acts  of  injustice  are  not  like  acts  of  excessive  intemperance, 
punishable  in  the  ordinary  course  of  providence  by  pain  and  disease  and 
premature  death,  as  their  natural  general  consequences ;  nor,  in  most 
instances,  by  any  other  marked  infliction  of  the  Divine  displeasure  in 
the  present  life.  From  their  injurious  effects  upon  society  at  large, 
indications  of  the  will  of  God  respecting  them  may  doubtless  be  inferred, 
but  such  effects  arise  out  of  the  grosser  acts  of  fraud  and  rapine ;  those 
only  affect  the  movements  of  society,  (which  goes  on  without  being 
visibly  disturbed  by  the  violations  of  the  nicer  distinctions  of  equity  which 
form  an  essential  part  of  virtue,)  and  never  fail  to  degrade  and  corrupt 
individual  character.  Rules  of  justice,  therefore,  thus  indicated,  would, 
like  those  of  temperance,  be  very  imperfect. 

The  third  branch  of  virtue  is  benevolence,  the  disposition  and  the  habit 
of  doing  good  to  others.  But  in  what  manner  except  by  revelation  are 
the  extent  and  the  obligation  of  this  virtue  to  be  explained?  If  it  be  said, 
that  "  the  goodness  of  God  himself  as  manifested  in  creation  and  pro- 


FIRST.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  11 

vidence  presents  so  striking  an  example  of  beneficence  to  his  creatures, 
that  his  will,  as  to  the  cultivation  of  this  virtue,  may  be  unequivocally 
inferred  from  it,"  we  cannot  but  perceive,  that  this  example  itself  is 
imperfect,  unless  other  parts  of  the  Divine  conduct  be  explained  to  us, 
as  the  Scriptures  explain  them.  For  if  we  have  manifestations  of  his 
goodness,  we  see  also  fearful  proofs  of  his  severity.  Such  are  the  per- 
mission  of  pestilence,  earthquakes,  inundations  :  and  the  infliction  of 
pain  and  death  upon  all  men,  even  upon  infants  and  unsinning  animals. 
If  the  will  of  God  in  favour  of  beneficent  actions  is  to  be  inferred  from 
the  pleasure  which  is  afforded  to  those  who  perform  them,  it  is  only 
indicated  to  those  to  whom  a  beneficent  act  gives  pleasure,  and  its  non- 
performance pain  ;  and  it  cannot  therefore  be  at  all  apprehended  by 
those  who  by  constitution  are  obdurate,  or  by  habit  selfish.  The  rule 
would  therefore  be  uncertain  and  dark,  and  entirely  silent  as  to  the 
extent  to  which  beneficence  is  to  be  carried,  and  whether  there  may 
not  be  exceptions  to  its  exercise  as  to  individuals,  such  as  enemies, 
vicious  persons,  and  strangers. 

Whatever  general  indications  there  may  be  in  the  acts  of  God,  in  the 
constitution  of  human  nature,  or  in  the  relations  of  society,  that  some 
actions  are  according  to  the  will  of  God,  and  therefore  good,  and  that 
others  are  opposed  to  his  will,  and  therefore  evil ;  it  follows  then,  that 
they  form  a  rule  too  vague  in  itself,  and  too  liable  to  different  interpret- 
ations, to  place  the  conduct  of  men  under  adequate  regulation,  even  in 
respect  of  temperance,  justice,  and  beneficence.  But  if  these  and  other 
virtues,  in  their  nicest  shades,  were  indicated  by  the  types  of  nature,  and 
the  manifestations  of  the  will  of  God  in  his  moral  government,  these  types 
and  this  moral  government  are  either  entirely  silent,  or  speak  equivocally 
as  to  subjects  of  vital  importance  to  the  right  conduct  and  effectual  moral 
control,  as  well  as  to  the  hopes  and  the  happiness  of  man. 

There  is  no  indication,  for  instance,  in  either  nature  or  providence, 
that  it  is  the  will  of  God  that  his  creatures  should  worship  him  ;  and  the 
moral  effects  of  adoration,  homage,  and  praise,  on  this  system,  would  be 
lost.  There  is  no  indication  that  God  will  be  approached  in  prayer,  and 
this  hope  and  solace  of  man  is  unprovided  for.  Nor  is  there  a  sufficient 
indication  of  a  future  state  of  rewards  and  punishment ;  because  there 
is  no  indubitable  declaration  of  man's  immortality,  nor  any  facts  and 
principles  so  obvious  as  to  enable  us  confidently  to  infer  it.  All  observa. 
tion  lies  directly  against  the  doctrine  of  the  immortality  of  man.  He 
diet,  and  the  probabilities  of  a  future  life  which  have  been  established 
upon  the  unequal  distribution  of  rewards  and  punishments  in  this  life,  and 
the  capacities  of  the  human  soul,  are  a  presumptive  evidence  which  has 
been  adduced,  as  we  shall  afterward  show,  only  by  those  to  whom  the 
doctrine  had  been  transmitted  by  tradition,  and  who  were  therefore  in 
possession  of  the  idea ;  and,  even  then,  to  have  any  effectual  force  of 


12  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  TPART 

t  persuasion,  they  must  be  built  upon  antecedent  principles  furnished  only 
by  the  revelations  contained  in  Holy  Scripture.  Hence  some  of  the 
wisest  heathens,  who  were  not  wholly  unaided  in  their  speculations  on 
these  subjects  by  the  reflected  light  of  those  revelations,  confessed  them- 
selves unable  to  come  to  any  satisfactory  conclusion.  The  doubts  of 
Socrates,  who  expressed  himself  the  most  hopefully  of  any  on  the  subject 
of  a  future  life,  are  well  known ;  and  Cicero,  who  occasionally  expatiates 
with  so  much  eloquence  on  this  topic,  shows  by  the  skeptical  expressions 
which  he  throws  in,  that  his  belief  was  by  no  means  confirmed.  (3)  If, 
therefore,  without  any  help  from  direct  or  traditional  instruction,  we  could 
go  as  far  as  they,  it  is  plain  that  our  religious  system  would  be  deficient 
in  all  those  motives  to  virtue  which  arise  from  the  doctrines  of  man's 
accountability  and  a  future  life,  and  in  that  moral  control  which  such 
doctrines  exert  :  the  necessity  of  which  for  the  moral  government  of 
the  world  is  sufficiently  proved,  by  the  wickedness  which  prevails  even 
where  these  doctrines  are  fully  taught. 

Still  farther,  there  is  nothing  in  those  manifestations  of  God  and  of 
his  will,  which  the  most  attentive  contemplatist  can  be  supposed  to  col- 
lect from  his  natural  works  and  from  his  sovereign  rule,  to  afford  the 
hope  of  pardon  to  any  one  who  is  conscious  of  having  offended  him, 
or  any  assurance  of  felicity  in  a  future  state,  should  one  exist. 

Some  consciousness  of  offence  is  felt  by  every  man ;  and  though  he 
should  not  know  the  precise  nature  or  extent  of  the  penalty  attached  to 
transgression,  he  has  no  reason  to  conclude  that  he  is  under  a  mild  and 
fondly  merciful  government,  and  that  therefore  his  offences  will  in  course 
be  forgiven.  All  observation  and  experience  lie  against  this  ;  and  the 
case  is  the  more  alarming  to  a  considerate  mind,  that  so  little  of  the  sad 
inference  that  the  human  race  is  under  a  rigorous  administration,  depends 
upon  reasoning  and  opinion :  it  is  fact  of  common  and  daily  observation. 
The  minds  of  men  are  in  general  a  prey  to  discontent  and  care,  and  are 
agitated  by  various  evil  passions.  The  race  itself  is  doomed  to  wasting 
labours  of  the  body  or  the  mind,  in  order  to  obtain  subsistence.  Their 
employments  are  for  the  most  part  low  and  grovelling,  in  comparison  of 
/  the  capacity  of  the  soul  for  intellectual  pleasure  and  attainments./  The 
mental  powers,  though  distributed  with  great  equality  among  the  various 
classes  of  men,  are  only  in  the  case  of  a  few  individuals  ever  awakened/) 
The  pleasures  most  strenuously  sought  are  therefore  sensual,  degrad- 
ing, and  transient.  Life  itself,  too,  is  precarious  :  infants  suffer  and 
die,  youth  is  blighted,  and  thus  by  far  the  greater  part  of  mankind  is 

(3)  So  in  his  Tusc.  Quest.  1,  he  says,  "  Expone  igitur,  nisi  molestum  est,  pri- 
mum  animos,  si  potes,  remanere  post  mortem ;  turn  si  minus  id  ohtinebis  (est  enim 
arduum,)  docebis  carere  omni  malo  mortem.  Show  me  first,  if  you  can,  and  if  it 
be  not  too  troublesome,  that  souls  remain  after  doath  ;  or  if  you  cannot  provo  that, 
(for  it  is  difficult,)  declare  how  there  is  no  evil  in  death." 


FIRST.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  13 

swept  away  before  the  prime  of  life  is  attained.  Casualties,  plagues, 
famines,  floods,  and  war,  carry  on  the  work  of  destruction.  In  the 
majority  of  states  the  poor  are  oppressed,  the  rich  are  insecure,  private 
wrong  is  added  to  public  oppression,  widows  are  wronged,  orphans  are 
deprived  of  bread,  and  the  sick  and  aged  are  neglected.  The  very  re- 
ligions of  the  world  have  completed  human  wretchedness  by  obdurating 
the  heart,  by  giving  birth  to  sanguinary  superstitions,  and  by  introducing 
a  corruption  of  morals  destructive  of  the  very  elements  of  well-ordered 
society.  Part  of  these  evils  are  permitted  by  the  Supreme  Governor, 
and  part  inflicted,  either  by  connecting  them  as  consequents  to  certain 
actions,  or  to  the  constitution  of  the  natural  world  more  immediately ; 
but,  whether  permitted  or  inflicted,  they  are  punitive  acts  of  his  admi- 
nistration, and  present  him  before  us,  notwithstanding  innumerable 
instances  of  his  benevolence,  as  a  Being  of  "terrible  majesty."  (4) 

To  remove  in  part  the  awful  mystery  which  overhangs  such  an  ad- 
ministration, the  most  sober  Theists  of  former  times,  differing  from  the 
horde  of  vulgar  blasphemers  and  metaphysical  Atheists  who  have  arisen 
in  our  own  day,  have  been  ready  to  suppose  another  state  of  being,  to 
which  the  present  has  respect,  and  which  may  discover  some  means  of 
connecting  this  permission  of  evil,  and  this  infliction  of  misery,  (often  on 
the  apparently  innocent,)  with  the  character  of  a  Governor  of  perfect 
wisdom,  equity,  and  goodness.  But  in  proportion  as  any  one  feels 
himself  obliged  to  admit  and  to  expect  a  state  of  future  existence,  he 
must  feel  the  necessity  of  being  assured,  that  it  will  be  a  felicitous  one. 
Yet  should  he  be  conscious  of  frequent  transgressions  of  the  Divine 
law  ;  and  at  the  same  time  see  it  demonstrated  by  facts  occurring 
daily,  that  in  the  present  life  the  government  of  God  is  thus  rigorous, 
the  only  fair  conclusion  to  which  he  can  come  is,  that  the  Divine  go- 
vernment will  be  conducted  on  precisely  the  same  principles  in  another, 
for  an  infinitely  perfect  being  changes  not.  Farther  discoveries  may 
then  be  made  ;  but  they  may  go  only  to  establish  this  point,  that  the 
apparent  severity  of  his  dispensations  in  the  present  life  are  quite  con- 
sistent with  justice,  and  even  the  continued  infliction  of  punishment 
with  goodness  itself,  because  other  moral  agents  may  be  benefited  by 
the  example.  The  idea  of  a  future  life  does  not  therefore  relieve  the 
case.     If  it  be  just  that  man  should  be  punished  here,  it  may  be  re- 

(4)  "Some  men  seem  to  think  the  only  character  of  the  Author  of  nature  to 
be  that  of  simple  absolute  benevolence.  There  may  possibly  be  in  the  creation, 
beings,  to  whom  he  manifests  himself  under  this  most  amiable  of  all  characters, 
for  it  is  the  most  amiable,  supposing  it  not,  as  perhaps  it  is  not,  incompatible 
with  justice  ;  but  he  manifests  himself  to  us  as  a  righteous  Governor.  He  may 
consistently  with  this  be  simply  and  absolutely  benevolent ;  but  ho  is,  for  he  has 
given  us  a  proof  in  the  constitution  and  conduct  of  the  world  that  he  is,  a  Go. 
vernor  over  servants,  as  he  rewards  and  punishes  us  for  our  actions."  (Botlkr's 
Analogy.) 


H  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PAHT 

quired  by  the  same  just  regard  to  the  principles  of  a  strictly  moral 
government,  that  he  should  be  punished  hereafter. 

If  then  we  are  offenders  against  the  Majesty  of  so  dread  a  being,  as 
the  actual  administration  of  the  world  shows  its  Governor  to  be,  it  is 
in  the  highest  degree  necessary,  if  there  be  in  him  a  disposition  to  for- 
give our  offences,  that  we  should  be  made  acquainted  with  it,  and  with 
the  means  and  conditions  upon  which  his  placability  can  become  avail- 
able to  us.  If  he  is  not  disposed  to  forgive,  we  have  the  greatest  cause 
for  alarm  ;  if  an  inclination  to  forgive  does  exist  in  the  Divine  Mind, 
there  is  as  strong  a  reason  to  presume  that  it  is  indicated  to  us  some- 
where, as  that  the  law  under  which  we  are  placed  should  have  been 
expressly  promulgated  ;  and  especially  if  such  a  scheme  of  bestowing 
pardon  has  been  adopted  as  will  secure  the  ends  of  moral  government, 
and  lead  to  our  future  obedience, — the  only  one  which  we  can  con- 
ceive to  be  worthy  of  God. 

Now  it  is  not  necessary  to  prove  at  length,  what  is  so  obvious,  that 
if  we  had  no  method  of  knowing  the  will  and  purposes  of  God,  but  by 
inferring  them  from  his  works  and  his  government,  we  could  have  no 
information  as  to  any  purpose  in  the  Divine  Mind  to  forgive  his  sin- 
ning creatures.  The  Theist,  in  order  to  support  this  hope,  dwells 
upon  the  proofs  of  the  goodness  of  God  with  which  this  world  abounds, 
but  shuts  his  eyes  upon  the  demonstrations  of  his  severity ;  yet  these 
surround  him  as  well  as  the  other,  and  the  argument  from  the  severity 
of  God  is  as  forcible  against  pardon,  as  the  argument  from  his  good- 
ness is  in  its  favour.  At  the  best,  it  is  left  entirely  uncertain  ;  a 
ground  is  laid  for  heart-rending  doubts,  and  fearful  anticipations ;  and, 
for  any  thing  he  can  show  to  the  contrary,  the  goodness  which  God 
has  displayed  in  nature  and  providence  may  only  render  the  offence 
of  man  more  aggravated,  and  serve  to  strengthen  the  presumption 
against  the  forgiveness  of  a  wilful  offender,  rather  than  afford  him 
any  reason  for  hope. 

The  whole  of  this  argument  is  designed  to  prove,  that  had  we  been 
left,  for  the  regulation  of  our  conduct,  to  infer  the  will  and  purposes 
of  the  Supreme  Being  from  his  natural  works,  and  his  administration 
of  the  affairs  of  the  world,  our  knowledge  of  both  would  have  been 
essentially  deficient ;  and  it  establishes  a  strong  presumption  in  favour 
of  a  direct  revelation  from  God  to  his  creatures,  that  neither  his  will 
concerning  us,  nor  the  hope  of  forgiveness,  might  be  left  to  dark  and 
uncertain  inference,  but  be  the  subjects  of  an  express  declaration. 


FIRST.  J  THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES.  15 


CHAPTER  III. 

Farther  Presumption  of  a  direct  Revelation  from  the  Weakness 
and  Corruption  of  human  Reason,  and  the  want  of  Authority  in  merely 
human  Opinions. 

If  we  should  allow  that  a  perfect  reason  exercised  in  contemplating 
the  natural  works  of  God  and  the  course  of  his  moral  government,  might 
furnish  us,  by  means  of  an  accurate  process  of  induction,  with  a  suffi- 
cient rule  to  determine  the  quality  of  moral  actions,  and  with  sufficient 
motives  to  obedience,  yet  the  case  would  not  be  altered ;  for  that  perfect 
reason  is  not  to  be  found  among  men.  It  would  be  useless  to  urge  upon 
those  who  deny  the  doctrine  of  Scripture,  as  to  the  fall  of  man,  that  his 
understanding  and  reason  are  weakened  by  the  deterioration  of  his 
whole  intellectual  nature.  But  it  will  be  quite  as  apposite  to  the  argu- 
ment to  state  a  fact  not  to  be  controverted,  that  the  reasoning  powers 
of  men  greatly  differ  in  strength ;  and  that  from  premises,  which  all 
must  allow  to  be  somewhat  obscure,  different  inferences  would  inevitably 
be  drawn.  Either  then  the  Divine  law  would  be  what  every  man  might 
take  it  to  be,  and,  by  consequence,  a  variable  rule,  a  position  which 
cannot  surely  be  maintained  ;  or  many  persons  must  fail  of  duly  appre-  \f 
hending  \iJ  And  though  in  this  case  it  should  be  contended,  that  he  is 
not  punishable  who  obeys  the  law  as  far  as  he  knows  it,  yet  surely  the 
ends  of  a  steady  and  wisely  formed  plan  of  general  government  would 
on  this  ground  be  frustrated.  J  The  presumption  here  also  must  there- 
fore be  in  favour  of  an  express  declaration  of  the  will  of  God,  in  terms 
which  the  common  understandings  of  men  may  apprehend,  as  the  only 
means  by  which  sufficient  moral  direction  can  be  given,  and  effectual 
control  exerted. 

The  notion,  that  by  rational  induction  the  will  of  God  may  be  inferred 
from  his  acts  in  a  sufficient  degree  for  every  purpose  of  moral  direction, 
is  farther  vitiated  by  its  assuming  that  men  in  general  are  so  contempla- 
tive in  their  habits  as  to  pursue  such  inquiries  with  interest ;  and  so  well 
disposed  as  in  most  cases  to  make  them  with  honesty.  Neither  of  these 
is  true. 

The  mass  of  mankind  neither  are,  nor  ever  have  been,  contemplative, 
and  must  therefore,  if  not  otherwise  instructed,  remain  ignorant  of  their 
duty ;  for  questions  of  virtue,  morals,  and  religion,  as  may  be  shown 
from  the  contentions  of  the  wisest  of  men,  do  not  for  the  most  part  lie 
level  to  the  minds  of  the  populace  without  a  revelation.  (5)         ^^-^ 

(5)  "  If  philosophy  had  gone  farther  than  it  did,  and  from  undeniable  princi 
pies  given  us  ethics  in  a  science,  like  mathematics,  in  every  part  demonstrable, 
this  yet  would  not  have  been  bo  effectual  to  man  in  this  imperfect  state,  nor  pro- 


J 


16  THEOLOGICAL     INSTITUTES.  [PART 

It  is  equally  a  matter  of  undoubted  fact,  that  in  all  questions  of 
morals  which  restrain  the  vices,  passions,  and  immediate  interests  of 
men,  conviction  is  generally  resisted,  and  the  rule  is  brought  down  to 
the  practice,  rather  than  the  practice  raised  to  the  rule ;  so  that  the 
most  flimsy  sophisms  are  admitted  as  arguments,  and  principles  the 
most  lax  displace  those  of  rigid  rectitude  and  virtue.  This  is  matter 
of  daily  observation  and  cannot  be  denied.  V^  The  irresistible  inference 
from  this  is,  that  at  least,  the  great  body  of  mankind,  not  being  accus- 
tomed to  intellectual  exercises  ;  not  having  even  leisure  for  them  on  ac- 
count of  their  being  doomed  to  sordid  labours ;  and  not  being  disposed  to 
conduct  the  investigation  with  care  and  accuracy,  would  never  become 
acquainted  with  the  will  of  the  Supreme  Governor,  if  the  knowledge  of  it 
were  only  to  be  obtained  from  habitual  observation  and  reasoning} — 
Should  it  be  said,  "  that  the  intellectual  and  instructed  part  of  mankind 
ought  to  teach  the  rest,"  it  may  be  replied,  that  even  that  would  be  diffi- 
cult, because  their  own  knowledge  must  be  communicated  to  others  by 
the  same  process  of  difficult  induction  through  which  they  attain  it  them- 
selves, or  rational  conviction  could  not  be  produced  in  the  minds  of  the 
learners.}  The  task  would  therefore  be  hopeless  as  to  the  majority,  both 
from  their  want  of  time  and  intellectual  capacity.  But,  if  practicable,  the 
Theistical  system  has  no  provision  for  such  instruction.  It  neither  makes 
it  the  duty  of  some  to  teach,  nor  of  others  to  learn.  It  has  no  authorized 
teachers  ;  no  day  of  rest  from  labour,  on  which  to  collect  the  auditors  ; 
no  authorized  religious  ordinances  by  which  moral  truth  may  be  brought 
home  to  the  ears  and  the  hearts  of  men  :  and,  if  it  had,  its  best  know- 
ledge being  rather  contained  in  diffuse  and  hesitating  speculation,  than 
concentrated  in  maxims  and  first  principles,  embodied  in  a  few  plain 
words,  which  at  once  indicate  some  master  mind  fully  adequate  to  the 
whole  subject,  and  suddenly  irradiate  the  understandings  of  the  most 
listless  and  illiterate, — it  would  be  taught  in  vain. 

per  for  the  cure.  The  greatest  part  of  mankind  want  leisure  or  capacity  for 
demonstration,  nor  can  carry  a  train  of  proofs,  which  in  that  way  they  must 
always  depend  upon  for  conviction,  and  cannot  be  required  to  assent  to  till  they 
see  the  demonstration.  Wherever  they  stick,  the  teachers  are  always  put  upon 
proof,  and  must  clear  the  doubt  by  a  thread  of  coherent  deductions  from  the  first 
principle,  how  long  or  how  intricate  soever  that  be.  And  you  may  as  soon 
hope  to  have  all  the  day  labourers  and  tradesmen,  the  spinsters  and  dairy  maids, 
perfect  mathematicians,  as  to  have  them  perfect  in  ethics  this  way :  having  plain 
commands  is  the  sure  and  only  course  to  bring  them  to  obedience  and  practice  : 
the  greatest  part  cannot  know,  and  therefore  they  must  believe.  And  I  ask, 
whether  one  coming  from  heaven  in  the  power  of  God,  in  full  and  clear  evidence 
and  demonstration  of  miracles,  giving  plain  and  direct  rules  of  morality  and 
obedience,  be  not  likelier  to  enlighten  the  bulk  of  mankind,  and  set  them  right 
in  their  duties,  and  bring  them  to  do  them,  than  by  reasoning  with  them  from 
general  notions  and  principles  of  human  reason  ?"  (Locke's  Reasonableness  of 
Christianity.) 


FIRST.]  THEOLOGICAL   INSTITUTES. 


17 


Let  us  however  suppose  the  truth  discovered,  the  teachers  of  it  ap- 
pointed, and  days  for  the  communication  of  instruction  set  apart. 
With  what  authority  would  these  teachers  be  invested  ?  They  plead  no 
commission  from  Him  whose  will  they  affect  to  teach,  and  they  work 
no  miracles  in  confirmation  of  the  truth  of  their  doctrine.  That  doc- 
trine cannot,  from  the  nature  of  things,  be  mathematically  demonstrated 
so  as  to  enforce  conviction,  and  it  would  therefore  be  considered,  and 
justly  considered,  as  the  opinion  of  the  teacher,  and  nothing  but  arr 
opinion,  to  which  every  one  might  listen  or  not  without  any  conscious- 
ness of  violating  an  obligation,  and  which  every  one  might  and  would: 
receive  as  his  own  judgment  agreed  with  or  dissented  from  his  un- 
authorized teacher,  or  as  his  interests  and  passions  might  commend  or 
disparage  the  doctrine  so  taught.  (6) 

Facts  are  sufficiently  in  proof  of  this.  The  sages  of  antiquity  were 
moral  teachers  ;  they  founded  schools  ;  they  collected  tlisciples  ;  they 
placed  their  fame  in  their  wisdom:  yet  there  was  little  agreement 
among  them,  even  upon  the  first  principles  of  religion  and  morals  ; 
and  they  neither  generally  reformed  their  own  lives,  nor  those  of 
others.  This  is  acknowledged  by  Cicero  :  "  Do  you  think  that  these 
things  had  any  influence  upon  the  men  (a  very  few  excepted,)  who 
thought  and  wrote  and  disputed  about  them  ?  Who  is  there  of  all  the 
philosophers,  whose  mind,  life,  and  manners,  were  conformable  to  right 
reason  ?  Who  ever  made  his  philosophy  the  law  and  rule  of  his  life, 
and  not  a  mere  show  of  his  wit  and  parts?  Who  observed  his  own 
instructions,  and  lived  in  obedience  to  his  own  precepts  ?  On  the  con- 
trary, many  of  them  were  slaves  to  filthy  lusts,  many  to  pride,  many  to 
covetousness,"  &c.  (7) 

(G)  "  Let  it  be  granted,  (though  not  true,)  that  all  the  moral  precepts  of  the 
Gospel  were  known  by  somebody  or  other,  among  mankind  before.  But  where, 
or  how,  or  of  what  use,  is  not  considered.  Suppose  they  may  be  picked  up  here 
and  there ;  some  from  Solon,  and  Bias,  in  Greece ;  others  from  Tully,  in  Italy, 
and,  to  complete  the  work,  let  Confucius  as  far  as  China  be  consulted,  and  Ana. 
ciiarsis  the  Scythian  contribute  his  share.  What  will  all  this  do  to  give  the 
world  a  complete  morality,  that  may  bo  to  mankind  the  unquestionable  rule  of 
life  and  manners?  What  would  this  amount  to  toward  being  a  steady  rule,  a 
certain  transcript  of  a  law  that  we  arc  under  ?  Did  the  saying  of  Aristippus  or 
Confucius  give  it  an  authority  ?  Was  Zeno  a  lawgiver  to  mankind  ?  If  not, 
what  he  or  any  other  philosopher  delivered  was  but  a  saying  of  his.  Mankind 
might  hearken  to  it,  or  reject  it,  as  they  pleased,  or  as  it  suited  their  interest, 
passions,  principles,  or  humours  : — they  were  under  no  obligation  :  the  opinion  of 
this  or  that  philosopher  was  of  no  authority."    (Locke's  Reasonableness,  <J>c.) 

"  The  truths  which  the  philosophers  proved  by  speculative  reason,  were  desti- 
tute of  some  more  sensible  authority  to  back  them  ;  and  the  precepts  which  they 
laid  down,  how  reasonable  soever  in  themselves,  seemed  still  to  want  weight,  aud 
to  be  no  more  than  precepts  of  men."   (Dr.  Sam.  Clarke.) 

(7)  Sed  hfec  eadem  num  censes  apud  eos  ipsos  valere,  nisi  admodum  pauccs,  a 

Vol.  I  2 


18  THEOLOGICAL   INSTITUTES.  [PART 

Such  a  system  of  moral  direction  and  control,  then,  could  it  be 
formed,  would  bear  no  comparison  to  that  which  is  provided  by  direct 
and  external  revelation,  of  which  the  doctrine,  tho.igh  delivered  by  dif- 
ferent men,  in  different  ages,  is  consentaneous  throughout ;  which  is 
rendered  authoritative  by  Divine  attestation  ;  which  consists  in  clear 
and  legislative  enunciation,  and  not  in  human  speculation  and  laborious 
inference ;  of  which  the  teachers  were  as  holy  as  their  doctrine  was 
sublime  ;  and  which  in  all  ages  has  exerted  a  powerful  moral  influence 
upon  the  conduct  of  men.  "  I  know  of  but  one  Phsedo  and  one  Pole- 
mon  throughout  all  Greece,"  saith  Origen,  "  who  were  ever  made  bet- 
ter  by  their  philosophy ;  whereas  Christianity  hath  brought  back  its 
myriads  from  vice  to  virtue." 

All  these  considerations  then  still  farther  support  the  presumption, 
that  the  will  of  God  has  been  the  subject  of  express  revelation  to  man, 
because  such  a  declaration  of  it  is  the  only  one  which  can  be  conceived 

ADEQUATE  ;     COMPLETE  ;    OF    COMMON    APPREHENSION  ;     SUFFICIENTLY 
AUTHORITATIVE  :  AND  ADAPTED  TO  THE  CIRCUMSTANCES  OF  MANKIND. 


CHAPTER  IV. 

Farther  Proofs  of  the  Weakness  and  Uncertainty  of  Human 

Reason. 

The  opinion,  that  sufficient  notices  of  the  will  and  purposes  of  God 
with  respect  to  man,  may  be  collected  by  rational  induction  from  his 
works  and  government,  attributes  too  much  to  the  power  of  human 
reason  and  the  circumstances  under  which,  in  that  case,  it  must  ne- 
cessarily commence  its  exercise. 

Human  reason  must  be  taken,  as  it  is  in  fact,  a  weak  and  erring 
faculty,  and  as  subject  to  have  its  operations  suspended  or  disturbed 
by  the  influence  of  vicious  principles  and  attachment  to  earthly  things  ; 
neither  of  which  can  be  denied,  however  differently  they  may  be 
accounted  for. 

It  is  another  consideration  of  importance  that  the  exercise  of  reason 
is  limited  by  our  knowledge  ;  in  other  words,  that  it  must  be  furnished 
with  subjects  which  it  may  arrange,  compare,  and  judge :  for  beyond 
what  it  clearly  conceives  its  power  does  not  extend. 

It  does  not  follow,  that,  because  many  doctrines  in  religion  and  many 
rules  in  morals  carry  clear  and  decided  conviction  to  the  judgment 
instantly  upon  their  being  proposed,  they  were  discoverable,  in  the  first 
instance,  by  rational  induction  ;  any  more  than  that  the  great  and  sim- 

quibus  inventa,  disputata,  conscripta  sunt  ?  Quotus  enim  quisque  philosophorum 
invenitur,  qui  sit  ita  moratus,  ita  animo  ac  vita  constitutus,  ut  ratio  postulat  ?  &c. 
(Tutc.  Quest.  2. 


FIRST.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  19 

pie  truths  of  philosophy,  which  have  been  brought  to  light  by  the 
efforts  of  men  of  superior  minds,  were  within  the  compass  of  ordinary 
understandings,  because,  after  they  were  revealed  by  those  who  made 
the  discovery,  they  instantly  commanded  the  assent  of  almost  all  to 
whom  they  were  proposed.  The  very  first  principles  of  what  is  called 
natural  religion  (8)  are  probably  of  this  kind.  The  reason  of  man, 
though  it  should  assent  to  them,  though  the  demonstration  of  them 
should  be  now  easy,  may  be  indebted  even  for  them  to  the  revelation 
of  a  superior  mind,  and  that  mind  the  mind  of  God.  (9) 

(8)  The  term  natural  religion  is  often  used  equivocally.  "  Some  understand 
by  it  every  thing  in  religion,  with  regard  to  truth  and  duty,  which,  when  once 
discovered,  may  bo  cleariy  shewn  to  have  a  real  foundation  in  the  nature  and 
relations  of  things,  and  which  unprejudiced  reason  will  approve,  when  fairly  pro- 
posed  and  set  in  a  proper  light ;  and  accordingly  very  fair  and  goodly  schemes  of 
natural  religion  have  been  drawn  up  by  Christian  philosophers  and  divines,  in 
which  they  have  comprehended  a  considerable  part  of  what  is  contained  in  the 
Scripture  revelation.  In  this  view  natural  religion  is  not  so  called  because  it 
was  originally  discovered  by  natural  reason,  but  because  when  once  known  it  is 
what  the  reason  of  mankind  duly  exercised  approves,  as  founded  in  truth  and 
nature.  Others  take  natural  religion  to  signify  that  religion  which  men  discover 
in  the  sole  exercise  of  their  natural  faculties,  without  higher  assistance."     (Le- 

LAND.) 

(9)  "  When  truths  are  once  known  to  us,  though  by  tradition,  we  are  apt  to 
be  favourable  to  our  own  parts,  and  ascribe  to  our  own  understanding  the  disco, 
very  of  what,  in  reality,  we  borrowed  from  others ;  or,  at  least,  finding  we  can 
prove  what  at  firstwe  learnt  from  others,  we  aro  forward  to  conclude  it  an  obvi- 
ous truth,  which,  if  we  had  sought,  we  could  not  have  missed.  Nothing  seems 
hard  to  our  understandings  that  is  once  known  ;  and  because  what  we  see,  we 
see  with  our  own  eyes,  we  are  apt  to  overlook  or  forget  the  help  we  had  from 
others  who  showed  it  us,  and  first  made  us  see  it,  as  if  we  were  not  at  all  be- 
holden to  them  for  those  truths  they  opened  the  way  to,  and  led  us  into ;  for, 
knowledge  being  only  of  truths  that  are  perceived  to  bo  so,  we  are  favourable 
enough  to  our  own  faculties  to  conclude  that  they,  of  their  own  strength,  would 
have  attained  those  discoveries  without  any  foreign  assistance,  and  that  we  know 
those  truths  by  the  strength  and  native  light  of  our  own  minds,  as  they  did  from 
whom  we  received  them  by  theirs, — only  they  had  the  luck  to  be  before  us.  Thus 
the  whole  stock  of  human  knowledge  is  claimed  by  every  one  as  his  private  pos- 
session, as  soon  as  he  (profiting  by  others'  discoveries)  has  got  it  into  his  own 
mind  :  and  so  it  is ;  but  not  properly  by  bis  own  single  industry,  nor  of  his  own 
acquisition.  He  studies,  it  is  true,  and  takes  pains  to  make  a  progress  in  what 
others  have  delivered  ;  but  their  pains  were  of  another  sort  who  first  brought 
those  truths  to  light  which  he  afterward  derives  from  them.  He  that  travels  the 
roads  now,  applauds  his  own  strength  and  legs,  that  have  carried  him  so  far  in 
such  a  scantling  of  time,  and  ascribes  all  to  his  own  vigour ;  little  considering 
how  much  ho  owes  to  their  pains  who  cleared  the  woods,  drained  the  bogs,  built 
the  bridges,  and  made  the  ways  passable,  without  which  he  might  have  toiled 
much  with  little  progress.  A  great  many  things  which  we  have  been  bred  up 
in  the  belief  of  from  our  cradles  and  are  now  grown  familiar,  (and,  as  it  were, 
natural  to  us  under  the  Gospel,)  we  take  for  unquestionable  obvious  truths,  and 
easily  demonstrable,  without  considering  how  long  we  might  have  been  in  doubt 


20  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

This  is  rendered  the  more  probable,  inasmuch  as  the  great  principles 
of  all  religion,  the  existence  of  God,  the  immortality  of  the  human  soul, 
the  accountableness  of  man,  the  gtfod  or  evil  quality  of  the  most  impor- 
tant moral  actions,  have,  by  none  who  have  written  upon  them,  by  no 
legislator,  poet,  or  sage  of  antiquity,  however  ancient,  been  represented 
as  discoveries  made  by  them  in  the  course  of  rational  investigation  ;  but 
they  are  spoken  of  as  things  commonly  known  among  men,  which  they 
propose  to  defend,  explain,  demonstrate,  or  deny,  according  to  their 
respective  opinions.  If  we  overlook  the  inspiration  of  the  writings  of 
Moses,  they  command  respect  as  the  most  ancient  records  in  the  world, 
and  as  embodying  the  religious  opinions  of  the  earliest  ages  ;  but  Moses 
nowhere  pretends  to  be  the  author  of  any  of  these  fundamental  truths. 
The  book  of  Genesis  opens  with  the  words, "  In  the  beginning  God  created 
the  heavens  and  the  earth ;"  but  here  the  term  "  God"  is  used  familiarly, 
and  it  is  taken  for  granted,  that  both  the  name  and  the  idea  conveyed 
by  it  were  commonly  received  by  the  people  for  whom  Moses  wrote. 

The  same  writer  gives  the  history  of  ages  much  higher  than  his 
own,  and  introduces  the  patriarchs  of  the  human  race  holding  conver- 
sations with  one  another  in  which  the  leading  subjects  of  religion  and 
morals  are  often  incidentally  introduced  ;  but  they  are  never  presented 
to  us  in  the  form  of  discussion ;  no  patriarch,  however  high  his  anti- 
quity, represents  himself  as  the  discoverer  of  these  first  principles, 
though  he  might,  as  Noah,  be  a  " preacher"  of  that  "righteousness" 
which  was  established  upon  them.  Moses  mentions  the  antediluvians 
who  were  inventors  of  the  arts  of  working  metals,  and  of  forming  and 
playing  upon  musical  instruments ;  but  he  introduces  no  one  as  the 
inventor  of  any  branch  of  moral  or  religious  science,  though  they  are 
so  much  superior  in  importance  to  mankind. 

In  farther  illustration  it  may  be  observed,  that,  in  point  of  fact,  those 
views  on  the  subjects  just  mentioned  which,  to  the  reason  of  all  sober 
Theists,  since  the  Christian  revelation  was  given,  appear  the  most 
clear  and  satisfactory,  have  been  found  nowhere  since  patriarchal 
times,  except  in  the  Scriptures,  which  profess  to  embody  the  true  reli- 
gious traditions  and  revelations  of  all  ages,  or  among  those  whose 
reason  derived  principles  from  these  revelations  on  which  to  establish 
its  inferences. 

We  generally  think  it  a  truth,  easily  and  convincingly  demonstrated, 
that  there  is  a  God  ;  and  yet  many  of  the  philosophers  of  antiquity 

or  ignorance  of  them  had  revelation  been  silent.  And  many  others  are  beholden 
to  revelation  who  do  not  acknowledge  it.  It  is  no  diminishing  to  revelation, 
that  reason  gives  its  suffrage  too  to  the  truths  revelation  has  discovered  ;  but  it 
is  our  mistake  to  think,  that  because  reason  confirms  them  to  us,  we  had  the  first 
certain  knowledge  of  them  from  thence,  and  in  that  clear  evidence  we  now  pos- 
sess thorn."   (Lockk.) 


FIRST.]  THEOLOGICAL   INSTITUTES.  21 

speak  doubtingly  on  this  point,  and  some  of.  them  denied  it.  At  the 
present  day,  not  merely  a  few  speculative  philosophers  in  the  heathen 
world,  but  the  many  millions  of  the  Human  race  who  profess  the  religion 
of  Budhu,  not  only  deny  a  Supreme  First  Cause,  but  dispute  With 
subtlety  and  vehemence  against  the  doctrine. 

We  feel  that  our  reason  rests  with  full  satisfaction  in  the  doctrine  that 
all  things  are  created  by  one  eternal  and  self-existent  Being ;  but  the 
Greek  philosophers  held  that  matter  was  eternally  co-existent  with  God. 
This  was  the  opinion  of  Plato,  who  has  been  called  the  Moses  of  phi- 
losophers. Through  the  whole  "  Timems"  Plato  supposes  two  eternal 
and  independent  causes  of  all  things  ;  one,  that  by  which  all  things  are 
made,  which  is  Qod :  the  other,  that  from  which  all  things  are  made, 
which  is  matter.  Dr.  Cudworth  has  in  vain  attempted  to  clear  Plato  of 
this  charge.  The  learned  Dr.  Thomas  Burnet,  who  was  well  acquainted 
with  the  opinions  of  the  ancients,  says  that  "  the  Ionic,  Pythagoric, 
Platonic  and  Stoic  schools  all  agreed  in  asserting  the  eternity  of  matter  ; 
and  that  the  doctrine,  that  matter  was  created  out  of  nothing,  seems  to 
have  been  unknown  to  the  philosophers,  and  is  one  of  which  they  had  * 
no  notion."  Aristotle  asserted  the  eternity  of  the  world,  both  in  matter 
and  form  too,  which  was  but  an  easy  deduction  from  the  former  prin- 
ciple, and  is  sufficiently  in  proof  of  its  Atheistical  tendency. 

The  same  doctrine  was  extensively  spread  at  a  very  ancient  period 
throughout  the  east,  and  plainly  takes  away  a  great  part  of  the  founda- 
tion of  those  arguments  for  the  existence  of  a  Supreme  Deity,  on  which 
the  moderns  have  so  confidently  rested  for  the  demonstration  of  the 
existence  of  God  by  rational  induction,  whether  draAvn  from  the  works 
of  nature,  or  from  metaphysical  principles ;  so  much  are  those  able 
works  which  have  been  written  on  this  subject  indebted  to  that  revelation 
on  which  their  authors  too  often  close  their  eyes,  for  the  very  bases  on 
which  their  most  convincing  arguments  are  built.  The  same  Atheistical 
results  logically  followed  from  the  ancient  Magian  doctrine  of  two 
eternal  principles,  one  good  and  the  other  evil ;  a  notion  which  also 
infected  the  Greek  schools,  as  appears  from  the  example  of  Plutarch, 
and  the  instances  adduced  by  him. 

No  one  enlightened  by  the  Scriptures,  whether  he  acknowledges  his 
obligations  to  them  or  not,  has  ever  been  betrayed  into  so  great  an 
absurdity  as  to  deny  the  individuality  of  the  human  soul ;  and  yet  where 
the  light  of  revelation  has  not  spread,  absurd  and  destructive  to  morals 
as  this  notion  is,  it  very  extensively  prevails.  The  opinion  that  the 
human  soul  is  a  part  of  God,  enclosed  for  a  short  time  in  matter,  but 
still  a  portion  of  his  essence,  runs  through  much  of  the  Greek  philosophy. 
It  is  still  more  ancient  than  that,  and,  at  the  present  day,  the  same 
opinion  destroys  all  idea  of  accountability  among  those  who  in  India 
follow  the  Brahminical  system.     "The  human  soul  is  God,  and  the 


22  THEOLOGICAL   INSTITUTES.  [PART 

acts  of  the  human  soul  are  therefore  the  acts  of  God."  This  is  the 
popular  argument  by  which  their  crimes  are  justified. 

The  doctrine  of  one  supreme,  all- wise,  and  uncontrollable  Providence, 
commends  itself  to  our  reason  as  one  of  the  noblest  and  most  supporting 
of  truths ;  but  we  are  not  to  overlook  the  source  from  whence  even 
those  draw  it,  who  think  the  reason  of  man  equal  to  its  full  develope- 
meut.  So  far  were  pagans  from  being  able  to  conceive  so  lofty  a 
thought,  that  the  wisest  of  them  invented  subordinate  agents  to  carry  on 
the  affairs  of  the  world ;  beings  often  divided  among  themselves,  and 
subject  to  human  passions ;  thereby  destroying  the  doctrine  of  provi- 
dence, and  taking  away  the  very  foundation  of  human  trust  in  a 
Supreme  Power.  This  invention  of  subordinate  deities  gave  birth  to 
idolatry,  which  is  sufficiently  in  proof  both  of  its  extent  and  antiquity. 

The  beautiful  and  well-sustained  series  of  arguments  which  have  often 
in  modern  times  been  brought  to  support  the  presumption  "  that  the 
human  soul  is  immortal,"  may  be  read  with  profit ;  but  it  is  not  to  be 
accounted  for,  that  those  who  profess  to  confine  themselves  to  human 
reason  in  the  inquiry,  should  argue  with  so  much  greater  strength  than 
the  philosophers  of  ancient  times,  except  that  they  have  received  assist- 
ance from  a  source  which  they  are  unfair  enough  not  to  acknowledge. 
Some  fine  passages  on  this  subject  may  be  collected  from  Plato,  Cicero, 
Seneca,  and  others,  but  we  must  take  them  with  others  which  express, 
sometimes  doubt,  and  sometimes  unbelief.  With  us  this  is  a  matter 
of  general  belief;  but  not  so  with  the  generality  of  either  ancient  or 
modern  pagans.  The  same  darkness  which  obscured  the  glory  of  God, 
proportionably  diminished  the  glory  of  man, — his  true  and  proper 
immortality.  The  very  ancient  notion  of  an  absorption  of  souls 
back  again  into  the  Divine  Essence  was  with  the  ancients,  what  we 
know  it  to  be  now  in  the  metaphysical  system  of  the  Hindoos,  a  denial 
of  individual  immortality  ;  nor  have  the  demonstrations  of  reason  done 
any  thing  to  convince  the  other  grand  division  of  metaphysical  pagans 
into  which  modern  heathenism  is  divided,  the  followers  of  Budhu,  who 
believe  in  the  total  annihilation  of  both  men  and  gods  after  a  series 
of  ages, — a  point  of  faith  held  probably  by  the  majority  of  the  present 
race  of  mankind.  (1) 

(1)  "  The  religion  of  Budhu,"  says  Dr.  Davy,  "  is  more  widely  extended  than 
any  other  religion.  It  appears  to  be  the  religion  of  the  whole  of  Tartary,  of 
China,  of  Japan,  and  their  dependencies,  and  of  all  the  countries  between  China 
and  the  Burrampooter. 

41  The  Budhists  do  not  believe  in  the  existence  of  a  Supreme  Being,  self  existent 
and  eternal,  the  creator  and  preserver  of  the  universe :  indeed,  it  is  doubtful  if 
they  believe  in  the  existence  and  operation  of  any,  cause  beside  fate  and  necessity, 
to  which  they  seem  to  refer  all  changes  in  the  moral  and  physical  world.  They 
appear  to  be  Materialists  in  the  strictest  sense  of  the  term,  and  to  have  no  notion 
of  pure  spirit  or  mind.    Prane  and  hitta,  life  and  intelligence,  the  most  learned 


FIRST-!  THEOLOGICAL   INSTITUTES.  23 

These  instances  might  be  enlarged ;  but  they  amply  show  that  they 
who  speak  of  the  sufficiency  of  human  reason  in  matters  of  morals  and 
religion  neglect  almost  all  the  facts  which  the  history  of  human  opinion 
furnishes ;  and  that  they  owe  all  their  best  views  to  that  fountain  of 
inspiration  from  which  they  so  criminally  turn  aside.  For  how  other- 
wise can  the  instances  we  have  just  mentioned  be  explained  ?  and  how 
is  it,  that  those  fundamental  principles  in  morals  and  religion,  which 
modern  philosophers  have  exhibited  as  demonstrable  by  the  unassisted 
powers  of  the  human  mind,  were  either  held  doubtfully,  or  connected 
with  some  manifest  absurdity,  or  utterly  denied  by  the  wisest  moral 
teachers  among  the  Gentiles,  who  lived  before  the  Christian  revelation 
was  given  ?  They  had  the  same  works  of  God  to  behold,  and  the  same 
course  of  providence  to  reason  from,  to  neither  of  which  were  they  inat- 
tentive. They  had  intellectual  endowments,  which  have  been  the  ad- 
miration of  all  subsequent  ages ;  and  their  reason  was  rendered  acute  and 
discriminative  by  the  discipline  of  mathematical  and  dialectic  science. 
They  had  every  thing  which  the  moderns  have  except  the  Bible  ;  and 
yet  on  points  which  have  been  generally  settled  among  the  moral  phi- 
losophers of  our  own  age  as  fundamental  to  natural  religion,  they  had 
no  just  views,  and  no  settled  conviction.  "  The  various  apprehensions 
of  wise  men,"  says  Cicero,  "  will  justify  the  doubtings  and  demurs  of 
skeptics,  and  it  will  then  be  sufficient  to  blame  them,  si  aut  consenserint 
alii,  aut  erit  inventus  aliquis,  qui  quid  verum  sit  invcnerit,  when  others 
agree,  or  any  one  has  found  out  the  truth.  We  say  not  that  nothing  is 
true ;  but  that  some  false  things  are  annexed  to  all  that  is  true,  tanta 
similitudine  id  lis  nulla  sit  certa  judicandi,  et  assentiendi  nota,  and  that, 
with  so  much  likeness,  that  there  is  no  certain  note  of  judging  what  is 
true,  or  assenting  to  it.  We  deny  not  that  something  may  be  true ; 
percipi  posse  negamus,  but  we  deny  that  it  can  be  perceived  so  to 
be ;  for  quid  habemus  in  rebus  bonis  et  malis  explorati,  what  have  we 
certain  concerning  good  and  evil  ?  Nor  for  this  are  we  to  be  blamed, 
but  nature,  which  has  hidden  the  truth  in  the  deep,  naturam  accusa 


of  them  appear  to  consider  identical : — seated  in  the  heart,  radiating  from  thence 
to  different  parts  of  the  body,  like  heat  from  a  fire  ; — uncreated,  without  beginning, 
at  least  that  they  know  of; — capable  of  being  modified  by  a  variety  of  circum- 
stances, like  the  breath  in  different  musical  instruments ; — and  like  a  vapour, 
capable  of  passing  from  one  body  to  another ; — and  like  a  flame,  liable  to  be 
extinguished  and  totally  annihilated.  Gods,  demons,  men,  reptiles,  even  the 
minutest  and  most  imperfect  animalcules,  they  consider  as  similar  beings,  formed 
of  tho  four  elements — heat,  air,  water,  and  that  which  is  tangible,  and  animated 
by  prane  and  hitta.  They  believe  that  a  man  may  become  a  god  or  a  demon  ;  or 
that  a  god  may  become  a  man  or  an  animalcule ;  that  ordinary  death  is  merely 
a  change  of  form  ;  and  that  this  change  is  almost  infinite,  and  bounded  only  by 
annihilation,  which  they  esteem  the  acme  of  happiness !"    {Account  of  Ceylon.) 


24  THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES.  [PART 

qua  in  prof  undo  veritatem  penitus  abstruserit."  (Vide  De  Nat.  Deorum, 
lib.  1,  n.  10,  11.     Acad.  Qu.  lib.  2,  n.  66,  120.) 

On  this  subject  Dr.  Samuel  Clarke,  though  so  great  an  advocate  of 
natural  religion,  concedes,  that  "of  the  philosophers,  some  argued  them- 
selves out  of  the  belief  of  the  very  being  of  a  God  ;  some  by  ascribing 
all  things  to  chance,  others  to  absolute  fatality,  equally  subverted  all  true 
notions  of  religions,  and  made  the  doctrine  of  the  resurrection  of  the 
dead,  and  a  future  judgment  needless  and  impossible.  Some  professed 
open  immorality,  others  by  subtle  distinctions  patronized  particular  vices. 
The  better  sort  of  them,  who  were  most  celebrated,  discoursed  with  the 
greatest  reason,  yet  with  much  uncertainty  and  doubtfulness,  concerning 
things  of  the  highest  importance, — the  providence  of  God  in  governing 
the  world,  the  immortality  of  the  sold,  and  a  future  judgment ." 

If  such  facts  prove  the  weakness  and  insufficiency  of  human  reason, 
those  just  thoughts  respecting  God,  his  providence,  his  will,  and  a  future 
state,  which  sometimes  appear  in  the  writings  of  the  wisest  heathen,  are 
not  however,  on  the  contrary,  to  be  attributed  to  its  strength.  Even 
if  they  were,  the  argument  for  the  sufficiency  of  reason  would  not  be 
much  advanced  thereby ;  for  the  case  would  then  be,  that  the  reason 
which  occasionally  reached  the  truth  had  not  firmness  enough  to  hold 
it  fast,  and  the  pinion  which  sometimes  bore  the  mind  into  fields  of 
light,  could  not  maintain  it  in  its  elevation.  But  it  cannot  even  be 
admitted,  that  the  truth  which  occasionally  breaks  forth  in  their  works 
was  the  discovery  of  their  own  powers.  There  is  much  evidence  to 
show,  that  they  were  indebted  to  a  traditional  knowledge  much  earlier 
than  their  own  day,  and  that  moral  and  religious  knowledge  among 
them  received  occasional  and  important  accessions  from  the  descend, 
ants  of  Abraham,  a  people  who  possessed  records  which,  laying  aside 
the  question  of  their  inspiration  for  the  present,  all  candid  Theists 
themselves  will  acknowledge,  contain  noble  and  just  views  of  God,  and 
a  correct  morality.  While  it  cannot  be  proved  that  human  reason 
made  a  single  discovery  in  either  moral  or  religious  truth ;  it  may  be 
satisfactorily  established,  that  just  notions  as  to  both  were  placed 
within  its  reach,  which  it  first  obscured,  and  then  corrupted. 


CHAPTER  V. 

"The  Origin  of  those  Truths  which  are  found,  in  the  Writings  and 
Religious  Systems  of  the  Heathen. 

We  have  seen  that  some  of  the  leading  truths  of  religion  and  morals, 
which  are  adverted  to  by  heathen  writers,  or  assumed  in  heathen  sys- 
tems, are  spoken  of  as  truths  previously  known  to  the  world,  and  with 
which  mankind  were  familiar.    Also,  that  no  legislator,  poet,  or  philoso- 


FIRST.]  THEOLOGICAL   INSTITUTES.  25 

pher  of  antiquity,  ever  pretended  to  the  discovery  of  the  doctrines  of  the 
existence  of  a  God,  of  providence,  a  future  state,  and  of  the  rules  by 
which  actions  are  determined  to  be  good  or  evil,  whether  these  opinions 
were  held  by  them  with  full  conviction  of  their  certainty,  or  only  doubt- 
fully. That  they  were  transmitted  by  tradition  from  an  earlier  age  ; 
or  were  brought  from  some  collateral  source  of  information  ;  or  that 
they  flowed  from  both ;  are  therefore  the  only  rational  conclusions. 

To  tradition  the  wisest  of  the  heathen  often  acknowledge  themselves 
indebted. 

A  previous  age  of  superior  truth,  rectitude,  and  happiness,  sometimes 
called  the  golden  age,  was  a  commonly  received  notion  among  them. 
It  is  at  least  as  high  as  Hesiod,  who  rivals  Homer  in  antiquity.  It  was 
likewise  a  common  opinion,  that  sages  existed  in  ages  anterior  to  their 
own,  who  received  knowledge  from  the  gods,  and  communicated  it  to 
men.  The  wisest  Heathens,  notwithstanding  the  many  great  things  said 
of  nature  and  reason,  derive  the  origin,  obligation,  and  efficacy  of  law 
from  the  gods  alone.  "  No  mortal,"  says  Plato  in  his  republic,  "  can 
make  laws  to  purpose."  Demosthenes  calls  law  sup^jxa  xai  6wpov  0sb, 
"  the  invention  and  gift  of  God."  They  speak  of  vo/jwi  uypoupoi,  "  unwrit- 
ten laws,"  and  ascribe  both  them,  and  the  laws  which  were  introduced 
by  their  various  legislators,  to  the  gods.  Xenophon  represents  it  as  the 
opinion  of  Socrates,  that  the  unwritten  laws  received  over  the  whole 
earth,  which  it  was  impossible  that  all  mankind,  as  being  of  different 
languages,  and  not  to  be  assembled  in  one  place,  should  make,  were  given 
by  the  gods.  (2)     Plato  is  express  on  this  subject :  "  After  a  certain 


(2)  Xen.  Mem.  lib.  4,  cap.  4,  sect.  19,  20. — To  the  same  effect  is  that  noble 
passage  of  Cicero  cited  by  Lactantius  out  of  his  work  De  Republica. 

"  Est  quidom  vera  lex,  recta  ratio,  naturae  congruens,  diffusa  in  omnes,  constans, 
sempiterna,  quae  vocet  ad  officium  jubendo,  vetando,  a  fraude  deterreat ;  quae  tamen 
neque  probos  frustra  jubet,  aut  vetat ;  nee  improbos  jubendo  aut  vetando  movet. 
Iiuic  legi  nee  abrogari  fas  est;  nee  derogari  ex  hac  aliquid  licet ;  neque  tota  abro- 
gari  potest.  Nee  vero  aut  per  senatum,  aut  per  populum  solvi  hac  lege  possumus ; 
neque  est  queerendus  explanator,  aut  interpres  ejus  alius.  Nee  enim  alia  lex  Ro- 
mee,  alia  Athenis,  alia  nunc,  alia  posthac  ;  sed  et  omnes  gentes,  et  omni  tempore, 
una  lex  et  sempiterna  et  immutabilis  continebit ;  unusque  erit  communis  quasi 
magister  et  imperator  omnium  Deus,  ille  legis  hujus  inventor,  disceptator,  lator ; 
cui  qui  non  parebit,  ipse  so  fugiet,  ac  naturam  hominis  aspernabitur ;  atque  hoc 
ipso  luet  maximas  pcenas,  etiamsi  csetera  supplicia,  qure  putantur,  effugerit :" — 
From  which  it  is  clear  that  Cicero  acknowledged  a  law  antecedent  to  all  human 
civil  institutions,  and  independent  of  them,  binding  upon  all,  constant  and  per- 
petual, the  same  in  all  times  and  places,  not  one  thing  at  Rome,  and  another  at 
Athens  ;  of  an  authority  so  high,  that  no  human  power  had  the  right  to  alter  or 
annul  it ;  having  God  for  its  author,  in  his  character  of  universal  Master  and 
Sovereign  ;  taking  hold  of  the  very  consciences  of  men,  and  following  them  with 
its  animadversions,  though  they  should  escape  the  hand  of  man,  and  the  penalties 
of  human  codes. 


26  THEOLOGICAL   INSTITUTES.  IPART 

flood,  which  but  few  escaped,  on  the  increase  of  mankind,  they  had  neither 
letters,  writing,  nor  laws,  but  obeyed  the  manners  and  institutions  of  their 
fathers  as  laws  :  but  when  colonies  separated  from  them,  they  took  an 
elder  for  their  leader,  and  in  their  new  settlements  retained  the  customs 
of  their  ancestors,  those  especially  which  related  to  their  gods :  and  tlms 
transmitted  them  to  their  posterity ;  they  imprinted  them  on  the  minds  of 
their  sons ;  and  they  did  the  same  to  their  children.  This  was  the  origin 
of  right  laws,  and  of  the  different  forms  of  government."  (De  Leg.  3.) 

This  so  exactly  harmonizes  with  the  Mosaic  account,  as  to  the  flood 
of  Noah,  the  origin  of  nations,  and  the  Divine  institution  of  religion 
and  laws,  that  either  the  patriarchal  traditions  embodied  in  the  writ- 
ings of  Moses,  had  gone  down  with  great  exactness  to  the  times  of 
Plato  ;  or  the  writings  of  Moses  were  known  to.  him  ;  or  he  had  ga- 
thered the  substance  of  them,  in  his  travels,  from  the  Egyptian,  the 
Chaldean,  or  the  Magian  philosophers.  .^ 

Nor  is  this  an  unsupported  hypothesis.  The  evidence  is  most  abun- 
dant, that  the  primitive  source  from  whence  every  great  religious  and 
moral  truth  was  drawn,  must  be  fixed  in  that  part  of  the  world  where 
Moses  places  the  dwelling  of  the  patriarchs  of  the  human  race,  who 
walked  with  God,  and  received  the  law  from  his  mouth.  (3)  There,  in 
•the  earliest  times,  civilization  and  polity  were  found,  while  the  rest  of  the 
earth  was  covered  with  savage  tribes, — a  sufficient  proof  that  Asia  was 
the  common  centre  from  whence  the  rest  of  mankind  dispersed,  who,  as 
they  wandered  from  these  primitive  seats,  and  addicted  themselves  more 
to  the  chase  than  to  agriculture,  became  in  most  instances  barbarous.  (4) 

In  the  multifarious  and  bewildering  superstitions  of  all  nations,  we 
also  discover  a  very  remarkable  substratum  of  common  tradition  and 
religious  faith. 

The  practice  of  sacrifice,  which  may  at  once  be  traced  into  all  nations, 
and  to  the  remotest  antiquity,  affords  an  eminent  proof  of  the  common 

(3)  "  The  east  was  the  source  of  knowledge  from  whence  it  was  communicated 
to  the  western  parts  of  the  world.  There  the  most  precious  remains  of  ancient 
tradition  were  found.  Thither  the  most  celebrated  Greek  philosophers  travelled 
in  quest  of  science,  or  the  knowledge  of  things  Divine  and  human,  and  thither 
the  lawgivers  had  recourse  in  order  to  their  being  instructed  in  laws  and  civil 
policy."   (Leland.) 

(4)  The  speculations  of  infidels  as  to  the  gradual  progress  of  the  original  men 
from  the  savage  life,  and  the  invention  of  language,  arts,  laws,  &c,  have  been  too 
much  countenanced  by  philosophers  bearing  the  name  of  Christ;  some  of  them 
even  holding  the  office  of  teachers  of  his  religion.  The  writings  of  Moses  suffi 
ciently  show  that  there  never  was  a  period  in  which  the  original  tribes  of  men 
were  in  a  savage  state  ;  and  the  gradual  process  of  the  developement  of  a  higher 
condition  is  a  chimera.  To  those  who  profess  to  believe  the  Scriptures,  their 
testimony  ought  to  be  sufficient :  to  those  who  do  not,  they  are  at  least  as  good 
history  as  any  other. 


PCRST.]  THEOLOGICAL   INSTITUTES.  27 

origin  of  religion  ;  inasmuch  as  no  reason  drawn  from  the  nature  of  the 
rite  itself,  or  the  circumstances  of  men,  can  be  given  for  the  univer 
sahty  of  the  practice  :  and  as  it  is  clearly  a  positive  institute,  and  op- 
posed to  the  interests  of  men,  it  can  only  be  accounted  for  by  an 
injunction,  issued  at  a  very  early  period  of  the  world,  and  solemnly  im- 
posed. This  injunction,  indeed,  received  a  force,  either  from  its  origi- 
nal appointment,  or  from  subsequent  circumstances,  from  which  the 
human  mind  could  never  free  itself.  "  There  continued,"  says  Dr. 
Shuckford,  "  for  a  long  time  among  the  nations  usages  which  show  that 
there  had  been  an  ancient  universal  religion ;  several  traces  of  which 
appeared  in  the  rites  and  ceremonies  which  were  observed  in  religious 
worship.  Such  was  the  custom  of  sacrifices  expiatory  and  precatory  ; 
both  the  sacrifices  of  animals,  and  the  oblations  of  wine,  oil,  and  the 
fruits  and  products  of  the  earth.  These  and  other  things  which  were 
in  use  among  the  patriarchs,  obtained  also  among  the  Gentiles." 

The  events,  and  some  of  the  leading  opinions  of  the  earliest  ages, 
mentioned  in  Scripture,  may  also  be  traced  among  the  most  barbarous,  as 
well  as  in  the  Oriental,  the  Grecian,  and  the  Roman  systems  of  mytho- 
logy. Such  are  the  formation  of  the  world  ;  the  fall  and  cor- 
ruption of  man  ;  the  hostility  of  a  powerful  and  supernatural  agent  of 
wickedness,  under  his  appropriate  and  Scriptural  emblem,  the  Serpent  ; 

the  DESTRUCTION  OF  THE  WORLD  BY  WATER  ;  the  REPEOPLING  OF  IT  BY 
THE  SONS  OF  NoAH  ;    the  EXPECTATION  OF  ITS  FINAL  DESTRUCTION  BV 

fire  ;  and,  above  all,  the  promise  of  a  great  and  Divine  Deliverer.  (5) 

The  only  method  of  accounting  for  this,  is,  that  the  same  traditions 
were  transmitted  from  the  progenitors  of  the  different  families  of  man- 
kind after  the  flood ;  that  in  some  places  they  were  strengthened,  and 
the  impressions  deepened  by  successive  revelations,  which  assumed  the 
first  traditions,  as  being  of  Divine  original,  for  their  basis,  and  thus  re- 
newed the  knowledge  which  had  formerly  been  communicated,  at  the 
very  time  they  enlarged  it :  and  farther,  that  from  the  written  revela- 
tions which  were  afterward  made  to  one  people,  some  rays  of  reflected 
light  were  constantly  glancing  upon  the  surrounding  nations. 

Nor  are  we  at  a  loss  to  trace  this  communication  of  truth  from  a 
common  source  to  the  Gentile  nations ;  and  also  to  show  that  they 
actually  did  receive  accessions  of  information,  both  directly  and  indi- 
rectly, from  a  people  who  retained  the  primitive  theological  system  in 
its  greatest  purity. 

We  shall  see  sufficient  reasons,  when  we  come  to  speak  on  that  sub- 
ject, to  conclude  that  all  mankind  have  descended  from  one  common  pair. 

If  man  is  now  a  moral  agent,  the  first  man  must  be  allowed  to  have 
been  a  moral  agent ;  and,  as  such,  under  rules  of  obedience  ;  in  which 

(5)  See  note  A  at  the  end  of  this  chapter. 


28  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

rules  it  is  far  more  probable  that  he  should  be  instructed  by  his  Maker 
by  means  of  direct  communication,  than  that  he  should  be  left  to  collect 
the  will  of  his  Maker  from  observation  and  experience.  Those  who 
deny  the  Scripture  account  of  the  introduction  of  death  into  the  world, 
and  think  the  human  species  were  always  liable  to  it,  are  bound  to  admit 
a  revelation  from  God  to  the  first  pair  as  to  the  wholesomeness  of  cer- 
tain fruits,  and  the  destructive  habits  of  certain  animals,  or  our  first 
progenitors  would  have  been  far  more  exposed  to  danger  from  delete- 
rious fruits,  &c,  and  in  a  more  miserable  condition  through  their  fears 
than  any  of  their  descendants,  because  they  were  without  experience, 
and  could  have  no  information.  (6)  But  it  is  far  more  probable,  that 
they  should  have  express  information  as  to  the  will  of  God  concerning 
their  conduct ;  for  until  they  had  settled,  by  a  course  of  rational  induc- 
tion, what  was  right,  and  what  wrong,  they  could  not,  properly  speak- 
ing, be  moral  agents ;  and,  from  the  difficulties  of  such  an  inquiry, 
especially  until  they  had  had  a  long  experience  of  the  steady  course  of 
nature,  and  the  effect  of  certain  actions  upon  themselves  and  society, 
they  might  possibly  arrive  at  very  different  conclusions.  (7) 

But  in  whatever  way  the  moral  and  religious  knowledge  of  the  first 
man  was  obtained,  if  he  is  allowed  to  have  been  under  an  efficient  law, 
he  must  at  least  have  known,  in  order  to  the  right  regulation  of  himself, 
every  truth  essential  to  religion,  and  to  personal,  domestic,  and  social 
morals.  The  truth  on  these  subjects  was  as  essential  to  him  as  to  his 
descendants,  and  more  especially  because  he  was  so  soon  to  be  the  head 
and  the  paternal  governor,  by  a  natural  relation,  of  a  numerous  race, 
and  to  possess,  by  virtue  of  that  office,  great  influence  over  them.  If 
we  assume,  therefore,  that  the  knowledge  of  the  first  man  was  taught  to 
his  children,  and  it  were  the  greatest  absurdity  to  suppose  the  contrary, 
then,  whether  he  received  his  information  on  the  principal  doctrines  of 
religion,  and  the  principal  rules  of  morals,-  by  express  revelation  from 
God,  or  by  the  exercise  of  his  own  natural  powers,  all  the  great  princi- 
ples of  religion,  and  of  personal,  domestic,  and  social  morals,  must  have 
been  at  once  communicated  to  his  children,  immediately  descending  from 
him  ;  and  we  clearly  enough  see  the  reason  why  the  earliest  writers  on 
these  subjects  never  pretend  to  have  been  the  discoverers  of  the  leading 
truths  of  morals  and  religion,  but  speak  of  them  as  opinions  familiar  to 
men,  and  generally  received.  This  primitive  religious  and  moral  sys- 
tem, as  far  as  regards  first  principles,  and  all  their  important  particular 
applications,  was  also  complete,  or  there  had  been  neither  efficient  reli- 
gion nor  morality  in  the  first  ages,  which  is  contrary  to  all  tradition,  and 

(6)  See  Dklaney's  Revelation  Examined  with  Candour,  Dissertations  1  and  2. 

(7)  "  It  is  very  probable,"  says  Puffendorf,  "  that  God  taught  the  first  men  the 
chief  heads  of  natural  law." 


FIRST.]  THEOLOGICAL   INSTITUTES.  29 

to  all  history ;  and  that  this  system  was  actually  transmitted,  is  clear 
from  this,  that  the  wisdom  of  very  early  ages  consisted  not  so  much  in 
natural  and  speculative  science,  as  in  moral  notions,  rules  of  conduct, 
and  an  acquaintance  with  the  opinions  of  the  wise  of  still  earlier  periods. 

The  few  persons  through  whom  this  system  was  transmitted  to 
Noah,  for  in  fact  Methuselah  was  contemporary  both  with  Adam  and 
Noah,  rendered  any  great  corruption  impossible ;  and  therefore  the 
crimes  charged  upon  the  antediluvians  are  violence  and  other  immo- 
ralities, rather  than  the  corruption  of  truth  ;  and  Noah  was  "  a  preacher 
of  righteousness"  rather  than  a  restorer  of  doctrine. 

The  flood,  (8)  being  so  awful  and  marked  a  declaration  of  God's  anger 
against  the  violation  of  the  laws  of  this  primitive  religion,  would  give 
great  force  and  sanction  to  it,  as  a  religious  system,  in  the  minds  of 
Noah's  immediate  descendants.  The  existence  of  God ;  his  providence ; 
his  favour  to  the  good ;  his  anger  against  evil  doers  ;  the  great  rules 
of  justice  and  mercy  ;  the  practice  of  a  sacrificial  worship  ;  the  obser- 
vance of  the  Sabbath  ;  the  promise  of  a  Deliverer,  and  other  similar 
tenets,  were  among  the  articles  and  religious  rites  of  this  primitive  sys- 
tem :  nor  can  any  satisfactory  account  be  given,  why  they  were  trans- 
mitted to  so  many  people,  in  different  parts  of  the  world  ;  why  they  have 
continued  to  glimmer  through  the  darkness  of  paganism  to  this  day ; 
why  we  find  them  more  or  less  recognized  inihe  mythology,  traditions, 
and  customs  of  almost  all  ages  ancient  and  modern,  except  that  they 
received  some  original  sanction  of  great  efficacy,  deeply  fixing  them  in 
the  hearts  of  the  patriarchs  of  all  the  families  of  men.  Those  who  deny 
the  revelations  contained  in  the  Scriptures,  have  no  means  of  account- 
ing for  these  facts,  which  in  themselves  are  indisputable.  They  have 
no  theory  respecting  them  which  is  not  too  childish  to  deserve  serious 
refutation,  and  they  usually  prefer  to  pass  them  over  in  silence.  But 
the  believer  in  the  Bible  can  account  for  them,  and  he  alone.  The  de- 
struction of  wicked  men  by  the  flood  put  the  seal  of  Heaven  upon  the 
religious  system  transmitted  from  Adam  ;  and  under  the  force  of  this 
Divine  and  unequivocal  attestation  of  its  truth,  the  sons  and  descend- 
ants of  Noah  went  forth  into  their  different  settlements,  bearing  for 
ages  the  deep  impression  of  its  sanctity  and  authority.     The  impres- 

(8)  Whatever  maybe  thought  respecting  the  circumstances  of  the  flood  as  men- 
tioned by  Moses,  there  is  nothing  in  that  event,  considered  as  the  punishment  of 
a  guilty  race,  and  as  giving  an  attestation  of  God's  approbation  of  right  principles 
and  a  right  conduct,  to  which  a  consistent  Theist  can  object.  For  if  the  will 
of  God  is  to  be  collected  from  observing  the  course  of  nature  and  providence, 
such  signal  and  remarkable  events  in  his  government  as  the  deluge,  whether  uni- 
versal or  only  co-extensive  with  the  existing  race  of  men,  may  be  expected  to 
occur ;  and  especially  when  an  almost  universal  punishment,  as  connected  with 
an  almost  universal  wickedness,  so  strikingly  indicated  an  observant  and  a  right. 
eous  government. 


30  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

sion,  it  is  true,  at  length  gave  way  to  vice,  superstition,  and  false  phi- 
losophy ;  but  superstition  perverted  truth  rather  than  displaced  it ;  and 
the  doctrines,  the  history,  and  even  the  hopes  of  the  first  ages,  were 
never  entirely  banished  even  from  those  fables  which  became  baleful 
substitutes  for  their  simplicity. 

In  the  family  of  Abraham  the  true  God  was  acknowledged.  Melchi- 
zedec  was  the  sovereign  of  one  of  the  nations  of  Canaan,  and  priest  of 
the  most  high  God,  and  his  subjects  must  therefore  have  been  worship, 
pers  of  the  true  Divinity.  Abimelech  the  Philistine  and  his  people,  both 
in  Abraham's  days  and  in  Isaac's,  were  also  worshippers  of  Jehovah, 
and  acknowledged  the  same  moral  principles  which  were  held  sacred 
in  the  elect  family.  The  revelations  and  promises  made  to  Abraham 
would  enlarge  the  boundaries  of  religious  knowledge,  both  among  the 
descendants  of  Ishmael,  and  those  of  his  sons  by  Keturah ;  as  those 
made  to  Shem  would,  with  the  patriarchal  theology,  be  transmitted  to 
his  posterity — the  Persians,  Assyrians,  and  Mesopotamians.  (9)  In 
Egypt,  even  in  the  days  of  Joseph,  he  and  the  king  of  Egypt  speak  of 
the  true  God,  as  of  a  being  mutually  known  and  acknowledged.  Upon 
the  arrival  of  the  Israelites  in  Canaan,  they  found  a  few  persons  in  that 
perhaps  primitive  seat  of  idolatry,  who  acknowledged  "  Jehovah  to  he 
God  in  heaven  above,  and  in  the  earth  beneath."  Through  the  branch 
of  Esau  the  knowledge  of  the  true  religion  would  pass  from  the  family 
of  Isaac,  with  its  farther  illustrations  in  the  covenants  made  with  Abra- 
ham, to  his  descendants.  Job  and  his  friends,  who  probably  lived  be- 
tween Abraham  and  Moses,  were  professors  of  the  patriarchal  religion ; 
and  their  discourses  show,  that  it  was  both  a  sublime  and  a  comprehen 
sive  system.  The  plagues  of  Egypt  and  the  miraculous  escape  of  the 
Israelites,  and  the  destruction  of  the  Canaanitish  nations,  were  all  parts 
of  an  awful  controversy  between  the  true  God  and  the  idolatry  spread- 
ing in  the  world ;  and  could  not  fail  of  being  largely  noised  abroad 
among  the  neighbouring  nations,  and  of  making  the  religion  of  the 
Israelites  known.  (  Jenkin's  Reasonableness  of  Christianity,  vol.  i,  chap. 
2.)  Balaam,  a  Gentile  prophet,  intermixes  with  his  predictions  many 
brief  but  eloquent  assertions  of  the  first  principles  of  religion  ;  the  om- 
nipotence of  Deity,  his  universal  providence,  and  the  immutability  of 
his  counsels  ;  and  the  names  and  epithets  which  he  applies  to  the  Su- 
preme Being,  are,  as  Bishop  Horsley  observes,  the  very  same  which  are 
used  by  Moses,  Job,  and  the  inspired  writers  of  the  Jews,  namely,  God, 
the  Almighty,  the  Most  High,  and  Jehovah ;  which  is  a  proof,  that,  grosa 
as  the  corruptions  of  idolatry  were  now  become,  the  patriarchal  reli- 
gion was  not  forgotten  nor  its  language  become  obsolete. 


(9;  See  Bishop  Horsley's  Dissertations  before  referred  to ;  and  Leland's  View 
of  the  Necessity  of  Revelation,  part  i,  chap.  2. 


FIRST.]  THEOLOGICAL   INSTITUTES.  31 

The  frequent  and  public  restorations  of  the  Israelites  to  the  principles 
of  the  patriarchal  religion,  after  they  had  lapsed  into  idolatry,  and  fallen 
under  the  power  of  other  nations,  could  not  fail  to  make  their  peculiar 
opinions  known  among  those  with  whom  they  were  so  often  in  relations 
of  amity  or  war,  of  slavery  or  dominion.  We  have  evidence  collateral 
to  that  of  the  Scriptures,  that  the  building  of  the  celebrated  temple  of 
Solomon,  and  the  fame  of  the  wisdom  of  that  monarch,  produced  not 
only  a  wide-spread  rumour,  but,  as  it  was  intended  by  Divine  wisdom 
and  goodness,  moral  effects  upon  the  people  of  distant  nations,  and  that 
the  Abyssinians  received  the  Jewish  religion  after  the  visit  of  the  queen 
of  Sheba,  the  principles  of  that  religion  being  probably  found  to  accord 
with  those  ancient  traditions  of  the  patriarchs,  which  remained  among 
them.  (1)  The  intercourse  between  the  Jews  and  the  states  of  Syria 
and  Babylon  on  the  one  hand,  and  Egypt  on  the  other,  powers  which 
rose  to  great  eminence  and  influence  in  the  ancient  world,  was  main- 
tained for  many  ages.  Their  frequent  captivities  and  dispersions  would 
tend  to  preserve  in  part,  and  in  part  to  revive,  the  knowledge  of  the 
once  common  and  universal  faith ;  for  we  have  instances,  that  in  the 
worst  periods  of  their  history  there  were  among  the  captive  Israelites 
those  who  adhered  with  heroic  steadfastness  to  their  own  religion.  We 
have  the  instance  of  the  female  captive  in  the  house  of  Naaman  the 
Syrian,  and,  at  a  later  period,  the  sublime  example  of  the  three  Hebrew 
youths,  and  of  Daniel  in  the  court  of  Nebuchadnezzar.  The  decree  of 
this  prince,  after  the  deliverance  of  Shadrach  and  his  companions,  ought 
not  to  be  slightly  passed  over.  It  contained  a  public  proclamation  of 
the  supremacy  of  Jehovah,  in  opposition  to  the  gods  of  his  country  ;  and 
that  monarch,  after  his  recovery  from  a  singular  disease,  became  him- 
self a  worshipper  of  the  true  God  ;  both  of  which  are  circumstances 
which  could  not  but  excite  attention,  among  a  learned  and  curious  peo- 
ple, to  the  religious  tenets  of  the  Jews.  We  may  add  to  this  also,  that 
great  numbers  of  the  Jews  preserving  their  Scriptures,  and  publicly 
worshipping  the  true  God,  never  returned  from  the  Babylonish  captivity ; 
but  remained  in  various  parts  of  that  extensive  empire  after  it  was  con- 

(1)  The  princes  of  Abyssinia  claim  descent  from  Menilek,  the  son  of  Solomon 
by  the  queen  of  Sheba.  The  Abyssinians  say  she  was  converted  to  the  Jewish 
religion.  The  succession  is  hereditary  in  the  line  of  Solomon,  and  the  device  of 
their  kings  is  a  lion  passant,  proper  upon  a  field  gules,  and  their  motto,  "  The 
lion  of  the  race  of  Solomon  and  tribe  of  Judah  hath  overcome."  The  Abyssinian 
eunuch  who  was  met  by  Philip  was  not  properly  a  Jewish  proselyte,  but  an  Abys- 
sinian believer  in  Moses  and  the  prophets.  Christianity  spread  in  this  country 
at  an  early  period ;  but  many  of  the  inhabitants  to  this  day  are  of  the  Jewish 
religion.  Tyre  also  must  have  derived  an  accession  of  religious  information 
from  its  intercourse  with  the  Israelites  in  the  time  of  Solomon,  and  we  find 
Hiram  the  king  blessing  the  Lord  God  of  Israel  "  as  the  Maker  of  heaven  and 
earth." 


32  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

quered  by  the  Persians.  The  Chaldean  philosophic  schools,  to  which 
many  of  the  Greek  sages  resorted  for  instruction,  were  therefore  never 
without  the  means  of  acquaintance  with  the  theological  system  of  the 
Jews,  however  degenerate  in  process  of  time  their  wise  men  became, 
by  addicting  themselves  to  judicial  astrology  ;  and  to  the  same  sacred 
source  the  conquest  of  Babylon  conducted  the  Persians. 

Cyrus,  the  celebrated  subverter  of  the  Babylonian  monarchy,  was  of 
the  Magian  religion,  wrhose  votaries  worshipped  God  under  the  emblem 
of  fire,  but  held  an  independent  and  eternal  principle  of  darkness  and 
evil.  He  was,  however,  somewhat  prepared  by  his  hostility  to  idols,  to 
listen  to  the  tenets  of  the  Jews ;  and  his  favour  to  them  sufficiently 
shows,  that  the  influence  which  Daniel's  character,  the  remarkable  facts 
which  had  occurred  respecting  him  at  the  courts  of  Nebuchadnezzar 
and  Belshazzar,  and  the  predictions  of  his  own  success  by  Isaiah,  had 
exerted  on  his  mind,  was  very  great.  In  his  decree  for  the  rebuilding 
of  the  temple,  recorded  in  Ezra,  chap,  i,  and  2  Chron.  xxxvi,  23,  he 
acknowledges  "  Jehovah  to  be  the  God  of  heaven"  who  had  given  him 
his  kingdom,  and  had  charged  him  to  rebuild  the  temple.  Nor  could 
this  testimony  in  favour  of  the  God  of  the  Jews  be  without  effect  upon 
his  subjects  ;  one  proof  of  which,  and  of  the  influence  of  Judaism  upon 
the  Persians,  is,  that  in  a  short  time  after  his  reign,  a  considerable  im- 
provement in  some  particulars,  and  alteration  in  others,  took  place  in 
the  Magian  religion  by  an  evident  admixture  with  it  of  the  tenets  and 
ceremonies  of  the  Jews.  (2)  And  whatever  improvements  the  theology 
of  the  Persians  thus  received,  and  they  were  not  few  nor  unimportant ; 
whatever  information  they  acquired  as  to  the  origin  of  the  world,  the 
events  of  the  first  ages,  and  questions  of  morals  and  religion,  subjects 
after  which  the  ancient  philosophers  made  keen  and  eager  inquiries  ; 
they  could  not  but  be  known  to  the  learned  Greeks,  whose  intercourse 
with  the  Persians  was  continued  for  so  long  a  period,  and  be  trans- 
mitted also  into  that  part  of  India  into  which  the  Persian  monarchs 
pushed  their  conquests. 

It  is  indeed  unquestionable,  that  the  credit  in  which  the  Jews  stood, 
in  the  Persian  empire  ;  the  singular  events  which  brought  them  into  no- 
tice with  the  Persian  monarchs  ;  the  favour  they  afterward  experienced 
from  Alexander  the  Great  and  his  successors,  who  reigned  in  Egypt, 
where  they  became  so  numerous,  and  so  generally  spoke  the  Greek, 
that  a  translation  of  the  Scriptures  into  that  language  was  rendered 
necessary  ;  and  their  having  in  most  of  the  principal  cities  of  the  Ro- 
man empire,  even  when  most  extended,  indeed  in  all  the  cities  which 
were  celebrated  for  refinement  and  philosophy,  their  synagogues  and 
public  worship,  in  Rome,  Alexandria,  and  Antioch,  at  Athens,  Corinth, 

(2)  See  note  B  at  the  end  of  this  chapter. 


FIRST.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  33 

Ephesus,  &c,  as  we  read  in  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  and  that  for  a  long 
time  before  the  Christian  era, — rendered  their  tenets  very  widely  known : 
and  as  these  events  took  place  after  their  final  reformation  from  idolatry, 
the  opinions  by  which  they  were  distinguished  were  those  substantially 
which  are  taught  in  the  Scriptures.  The  above  statements,  to  say 
nothing  of  the  fact,  that  the  character,  office,  opinions,  and  writings  of 
Moses  were  known  to  many  of  the  ancient  philosophers  and  historians, 
who  mention  him  by  name,  and  describe  the  religion  of  the  Jews,  are 
sufficient  to  account  for  those  opinions  and  traditions  we  occasionally 
meet  with  in  the  writings  of  the  Greek  and  Roman  sages  which  have 
the  greatest  correspondence  with  truth,  and  agree  best  with  the  Holy 
Scriptures.  They  flowed  in  upon  them  from  many  channels,  branching 
out  at  different  times  from  the  fountain  of  truth ;  but  they  were  received 
by  them  generally  as  mere  traditions  or  philosophic  notions,  which  they 
thought  themselves  at  liberty  to  adopt,  reject,  modify,  or  pervert,  as  the 
principles  of  their  schools  or  their  own  fancy  led  them. 

Let  then  every  question  which  respects  inspiration,  miracles, 
prophecies,  be  for  the  present  omitted :  the  following  conclusions  may 
properly  close  these  observations  : — 

1.  That  as  a  history  of  early  opinions  and  events,  the  Scriptures  have 
at  least  as  much  authority  as  any  history  of  ancient  times  whatever ; 
nay,  the  very  idea  of  their  sacredness,  whether  well  founded  or  not, 
renders  their  historical  details  more  worthy  of  credit,  because  that  idea, 
led  to  their  more  careful  preservation. 

2.  That  their  history  is  often  confirmed  by  ancient  pagan  traditions.-, 
and  histories ;  and  in  no  material  point,  or  on  any  good  evidence, . 
contradicted. 

3.  That  those  fundamental  principles  of  what  is  called  natural 
religion,  which  are  held  by  sober  Theists,  and  by  them  denominated . 
rational,  the  discovery  of  which  they  attribute  to  the  unassisted  un- 
derstanding of  man,  are  to  be  found  in  the  earliest  of  these  sacred 
writings,  and  are  there  supposed  to  have  existed  in  the  world  previous 
to  the  date  of  those  writings  themselves. 

4.  That  a  religion  founded  on  common  notions  and  common  traditions, 
comprehensive  both  in  doctrines  and  morals,  existed  in  very  early  periods 
of  the  world ;  and  that  from  the  agreement  of  almost  all  mythological  sys- 
tems, in  certain  doctrines,  rites,  and  traditions,  it  is  reasonable  to  believe, 
that  this  primitive  theology  passed  in  some  degree  into  all  nations. 

5.  That  it  was  retained  most  perfectly  among  those  of  the  descend, 
ants  of  Abraham  who  formed  the  Israelitish  state,  and  subsisted  as  a 
nation  collaterally  with  the  successive  great  empires  of  antiquity  for 
many  ages. 

6.  That  the  frequent  dispersions  of  great  numbers  of  that  people, 
either  bv  war  or  from  choice,  and  their  residence  in  or  near  the  seats 

Vql.'i.  a 


34  THEOLOGICAL   INSTITUTES.  [PART 

of  ancient  learning  with  their  sacred  books,  and  in  the  habit  of  observing 
their  public  worship,  as  in  Chaldea,  Egypt,  Persia,  and  other  parts  of 
the  ancient  world,  and  the  signal  notice  into  which  they  and  their  opin 
ions  were  occasionally  brought,  could  not  but  make  their  cosmogony, 
theology,  laws,  and  history,  very  extensively  known. 

7/  That  the  spirit  of  inquiry  in  many  of  the  ancient  philosophers  of 
different  countries,  led  them  to  travel  for  information  on  these  very  sub- 
jects, and  often  into  those  countries  where  the  patriarchal  religion  had 
formerly  existed  in  great  purity,  and  where  the  tenets  of  the  Jews,  which 
tended  to  revive  or  restore  it,  were  well  known. 

8.  That  there  is  sufficient  evidence  that  these  tenets  were  in  fact 
known  to  many  of  the  sages  of  the  greatest  name,  and  to  schools  of  the 
greatest  influence,  who,  however,  regarding  them  only  as  traditions  or 
philosophical  opinions,  interwove  such  of  them  as  best  agreed  with  their 
views  into  their  own  systems,  and  rejected  or  refined  upon  others,  so 
that  no  permanent  and  convincing  system  of  morals  and  religion  was, 
after  all,  wrought  out  among  themselves,  while  they  left  the  populace 
generally  to  the  gross  ignorance  and  idolatry  in  which  they  were 
involved.  (3) 

(3)  The  readiness  of  the  philosophers  of  antiquity  to  seize  upon  every  notion 
which  could  aid  them  in  their  speculations,  is  manifest  by  the  use  which  those 
of  them  who  lived  when  Christianity  began  to  be  known,  and  to  acquire  credit, 
made  of  its  discoveries  to  give  greater  splendour  to  their  own  systems.  The  thirst 
of  knowledge  carried  the  ancient  sages  to  the  most  distant  persons  and  places  in 
search  of  wisdom,  nor  did  the  later  philosophers  any  more  than  modern  infidels 
neglect  the  superior  light  of  Christianity,  when  brought  to  their  own  doors,  but 
they  wero  equally  backward  to  acknowledge  the  obligation.  "As  the  ancients" 
says  Justin  Martyr,  "had  borrowed  from  the  prophets,  so  did  the  moderns  from 
the  Gospel."  Totullian  observes  in  his  Apology,  "  Which  of  your  poets,  which  of 
your  sophists,  have  not  drunk  from  the  fountains  of  the  prophets?  It  is  from 
these  sacred  sources  likewise  that  your  philosophers  have  refreshed  their  thirsty 
spirits;  and  if  they  found  any  thing  in  the  Holy  Scriptures  to  please  their  fancy, 
or  to  serve  their  hypotheses,  they  turned  it  to  their  own  purpose,  and  made  it  serve 
their  curiosity ;  not  considering  these  writings  to  be  sacred  and  unalterable,  nor 
understanding  their  sense  ;  every  one  taking  or  leaving,  adopting  or  remodelling, 
as  his  imagination  led  him.  Nor  do  I  wonder  that  the  philosophers  played  such 
foul  tricks  with  the  Old  Testament,  when  I  find  some  of  the  same  generation 
among  ourselves  who  have  made  as  bold  with  the  New,  and  composed  a  deadly 
mixture  of  Gospel  and  opinion,  led  by  a  philosophizing  vanity." 

It  was  from  conversing  with  a  Christian  that  Epictetus  learned  to  reform  the 
doctrine,  and  abase  the  prlio  of  the  Stoics ;  nor  is  it  to  be  imagined  that  Marcus 
Antoninus,  Maximus  Tyrius,  and  others,  were  ignorant  of  the  Christian  doctrine. 

Rousseau  admits,  that  the  modern  philosopher  derives  his  better  notions  on  many 
subjects  from  those  very  Scriptures,  which  he  reviles;  from  the  early  impressions 
of  education  ;  from  living  and  conversing  in  a  Christian  country,  where  those 
doctrines  are  publicly  taught,  and  where,  in  spite  of  himself,  ho  imbibes  somo 
portion  of  that  religious  knowledge  which  the  sacred  writings  have  every  where 
diffused.     {Works,  vol.  ix,  p.  71 ;  1764.) 


FIltST.J  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  35 

9.  Finally,  that  so  far  from  there  being  any  evidence  that  any  of 
those  fundamental  truths  of  religion  or  morals,  which  may  occasionally 
appear  in  their  writings,  were  discovered  by  their  unassisted  reason, 
we  can  trace  them  to  an  earlier  age,  and  can  show  that  they  had  the 
means  of  access  to  higher  sources  of  information  ;  while  on  the  other 
hand  it  may  be  exhibited  as  a  proof  of  the  weakness  of  the  human 
mind,  and  the  corruptness  of  the  human  heart,  that  they  generally 
involved  in  doubt  the  great  principles  which  they  thus  received ;  built 
upon  them  fanciful  systems  destructive  of  their  moral  efficacy ;  and 
mixed  them  with  errors  of  the  most  deteriorating  character.  (4) 

The  last  observation  will  be  more  fully  illustrated  in  the  ensuing 
chapter. 

(4)  See  note  C  at  the  end  of  this  chapter. 


Note  A. — Page  27. 

The  illustration  of  the  particulars  mentioned  in  the  paragraph,  from  which  re- 
ference is  made  to  this  note,  may  be  given  under  different  heads. 

The  Formation  of  the  World  from  Chaotic  Matter. — Some  remains  of  the 
sentiments  of  the  ancient  Cliuldeans  are  preserved  in  the  pages  of  Syncellus  from 
Bcrosus  and  Alexander  Polyhistor  ;  and  when  the  tradition  is  divested  of  its 
fabulous  dress,  we  may  trace  in  the  account  a  primordial  watery  chaos,  a  separation 
of  the  darkness  from  light,  and  of  earth  from  heaven,  the  production  of  man  from 
the  dust  of  tho  earth,  and  an  infusion  of  Divine  reason  into  the  man  so  formed. — 
The  cosmogony  of  the  Phenicians,  as  detailed  by  Sanchoniatho,  makes  the  prin- 
ciple of  the  universe  a  dark  air,  and  a  turbulent  chaos.  The  ancient  Persians 
taught  that  God  created  the  world  at  six  different  times,  in  manifest  allusion  to 
the  six  days'  work  as  described  by  Moses.  In  tho  Institutes  of  Menu,  a  Hindoo 
tract,  supposed  by  Sir  William  Jones  to  have  been  composod  1280  years  before  the 
Christian  era,  the  universe  is  represented  as  involved  in  darkness,  when  tho  sole, 
self-existing  power,  himself  undiscerned,  made  tho  world  discernible.  With  a 
thought  he  first  created  the  waters,  which  are  called  Nara,  or  the  Spirit  of  God; 
and  since  they  wero  his  first  ayana,  or  place  of  motion,  he  is  thence  named 
Narayana,  or  moving  on  the  waters.  The  order  of  the  creation  in  the  ancient 
traditions  of  tho  Chinese  is, — the  heavens  were  first  formed ;  the  foundations  of 
the  earth  were  next  laid ;  the  atmosphere  was  then  diffused  round  the  habitable 
globe,  and  last  of  all,  man  was  created.  Tho  formation  of  the  world  from  chaos 
may  be  discovered  in  the  traditions  of  our  Gothic  ancestors. — See  the  Edda,  and 
Faber's  Hora  Mosaicce,  vol.  i,  page  3. 

In  the  ancient  Greek  philosophy  we  trace  the  same  tradition,  and  Plato  clearly 
borrowed  the  materials  of  his  account  of  the  origin  of  things,  either  from  Moses, 
or  from  traditions  which  had  proceeded  from  the  earns  source.  Moses  speaks  of 
God  in  the  plural  form,  "  In  the  beginning  Gods  created  the  tyaven  and  the  earth," 
and  Plato  has  a  kind  of  trinity  in  his  to  ayaOov,  "  the  good,"  vm  or  "  intellect,"  who 
was  properly  the  demiurgus,  or  former  of  the  world,  and  his  Psyche,  or  universal 
mundane  soul,  the  cause  of  all  the  motion  which  is  in  the  world.  He  also  repre 
■ents  the  first  matter  out  of  which  the  universe  was  formed  as  a  rude  ",h?.os.     In 


36  THEOLOGICAL   INSTITUTES.  LPART 

;.he  Greek  and  Latin  poets  we  have  frequent  allusions  to  the  same  fact,  and  in 
some  of  them  highly  poetic  descriptions  of  the  chaotic  state  of  the  world,  and  its 
reduction  to  order.  When  America  was  discovered,  traditions,  bearing  a  very 
remarkable  resemblance  to  the  history  of  Moses  on  various  subjects,  were  found 
among  the  semi-civilized  nations  of  that  continent.  Gomara  states  in  his  history, 
that  the  Peruvians  believed  that,  at  the  beginning  of  the  world,  there  came  from 
the  north  a  being  named  Con,  who  levelled  mountains  and  raised  hills  solely  by 
the  word  of  his  mouth ;  that  ho  filled  the  earth  with  men  and  women  whom  he 
had  created,  giving  them  fruits  and  bread,  and  all  things  necessary  for  their  sub. 
sistence;  but  that,  being  offended  with  their  transgressions,  he  deprived  thera 
of  the  blessings  which  they  had  originally  enjoyed,  and  afflicted  their  lands  with' 
sterility. 

"  The  number  of  days  employed  in  the  work  of  creation,"  says  Mr.  Faber, 
"and  the  Divine  rest  on  the  seventh  day,  produced  that  peculiar  measure  of  time, 
the  week,  which  is  purely  arbitrary,  and  which  does  not  spring,  like  a  day,  or  a 
month,  or  a  year,  from  the  natural  motions  of  the  heavenly  bodies.  Hence  the 
general  adoption  of  the  hebdomadal  period  is  itself  a  proof  how  widely  a  know, 
ledge  of  the  true  cosmogonical  system  was  diffused  among  the  posterity  of  Noah." 
Thus,  in  almost  every  part  of  the  globe,  from  Europe  to  the  shores  of  India,  and 
anciently  among  the  Greeks,  Romans,  and  Goths,  as  well  as  among  the  Jews,  we 
find  the  week  used  as  a  familiar  measure  of  time,  and  some  traces  of  the  Sabbath, 
i  The  Fall  of  Man. — That  the  human  race  were  once  innocent  and  happy,  is 
an  opinion  of  high  antiquity,  and  great  extent  among  the  Gentile  nations.  The 
passages  to  this  effect  in  the  classical  poets  are  well  known.  It  is  asserted  in  the 
JEdda,  the  record  of  the  opinions  of  our  Scythian  forefathers.  "  There  can  be 
little  doubt,"  says  Maurice,  in  his  History  of  Hindostan,  "but  that  by  the  Satya- 
age,  or  age  of  perfection,  the  Brachmins  obscurely  allude  to  the  state  of  perfection 
and  happiness  enjoyed  by  man  in  paradise.  Then  justice,  truth,  philanthropy, 
were  practised  among  all  the  orders  and  classes  of  mankind."  That  man  is  a 
fallen  creature,  is  now  the  universal  belief  of  this  class  of  pagans ;  and  the  de- 
generacy of  the  human  soul,  its  native  and  hereditary  degeneracy,  runs  through 
much  of  the  Greek  philosophy.  The  immediate  occasion  of  the  fall,  the  frailty 
of  the  woman,  we  find  also  alluded  to  equally  in  classical  fable,  in  ancient  Gothic 
traditions,  and  among  various  barbarous  tribes.  A  curious  passage  to  this  effbet 
occurs  in  Campbell's  Travels  among  the  Boschuana  Hottentots. 

The  Serpent. — The  agency  of  an  evil  and  malignant  spirit  is  found  also  in 
these  widely-extended  ancient  traditions.  Little  doubt  can  be  entertained  but 
that  the  generally  received  notion  of  good  and  evil  demons  grounded  itsalf  upon 
the  Scripture  account  of  good  and  evil  angels.  Serpent  worship  was  exceedingly 
general,  especially  in  Egypt  and  the  east,  and  this  is  not  to  be  accounted  for  but 
as  it  originated  from  a  superstitious  fear  of  the  malignant  demon,  who,  under 
that  animal  form,  brought  death  into  the  world,  and  obtained  a  destructive 
dominion  over  men.  That  in  ancient  sculptures  and  paintings,  the  serpent  sym. 
bol  is  sometimes  emblematical  of  wisdom,  eternity,- and  other  moral  ideas,  may 
be  allowed ;  but  it  often  appears  connected  with  representations  which  prove  that 
under  this  form  the  evil  principle  was  worshipped,  and  that  human  sacrifices 
were  offered  to  gratify  the  cruelty  of  him  who  was  a  "murderer  from  the  begin- 
ning." In  the  model  of  the  tomb  of  Psannnis,  made  by  Mr.  Bclzoni,  and  recently 
exhibited  in  London,  and  in  the  plates  which  accompany  his  work  on  Egypt,  arc 
seen  various  representations  of  monstrous  serpents  with  the  tribute  of  human 
heads  which  had  been  offered  to  them.  This  is  still  more  strikingly  exemplified 
in  a  copy  of  part  of  the  interior  of  an  Egyptian  tomb,  at  Biban  al  Melook  in 


FIRST.]  THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES.  37 

Richardson's  Travels  in  Egypt.  Before  an  enormous  serpent  three  men  are 
represented  on  their  knoes,  with  their  heads  just  struck  off  by  the  executioner, 
"  while  the  serpent  erects  his  crest  to  a  level  with  their  throats,  ready  to  drink 
tho  stream  of  life  as  it  gurgles  from  their  veins."  This  was  probably  the  serpent 
Typhon,  of  the  ancient  Egyptians ;  the  same  as  the  Python  of  the  Greeks ;  and, 
as  observed  by  Mr.  Faber,  "the  notion  that  the  Python  was  oracular,  may  have 
sprung  from  a  recollection  of  the  vocal  responses,  which  the  tempter  gave  to  Eve 
under  the  borrowed  figure  of  that  reptile."  By  consulting  Moore's  Hindu  Pan- 
theon, it  will  be  seen  that  the  serpent  Caliya  is  represented  as  the  decided  enemy 
of  tho  mediatorial  God,  Krishna,  whom  he  persecutes,  and  on  whom  he  inflicts 
various  sufferings,  though  he  is  at  length  vanquished.  Krishna,  pressed  within 
tho  folds  of  the  serpent,  and  then  triumphing  over  him  in  bruising  his  head  be- 
neath his  feet,  is  the  subject  of  a  very  ancient  Hindoo  has  relief,  and  carries  with 
it  its  own  interpretation. 

In  the  Edda,  Fab.  16,  "the  great  serpent  is  said  to  be  an  omanation  from 
Loke,  the  evil  principle  ;  and  hela,  or  hell  or  death,  in  a  poetical  vein  of  allegory 
not  unworthy  of  our  own  Milton,  is  celebrated  as  the  daughter  of  that  personage, 
and  as  the  sister  of  the  dragon.  Indignant  at  the  pertinacious  rebellion  of 
the  evil  principle,  tho  universal  Father  despatched  certain  of  the  gods  to  bring 
those  children  to  him.  When  they  were  come,  he  threw  the  serpent  down  to  the 
bottom  of  the  ocean.  But  there  the  monster  grew  so  large,  that  he  wound  him- 
self round  the  wholo  globe  of  the  earth.  Death  meanwhile  was  precipitated  into 
hell,  where  she  possesses  vast  apartments,  strongly  built,  and  fenced  with  grates 
of  iron.  Her  hall  is  grief;  her  table  famine  ;  hunger,  her  knife ;  delay,  her  ser- 
vant ;  faintness,  her  porch;  sickness  and  pain,  her  bed;  and  her  tent,  cursing 
and  howling" 

The  Flood  of  Noah. — Josephus,  in  his  first  book  against  Apion,  states  that 
Berosus  the  Chaldean  historian  relates,  in  a  similar  manner  to  Moses,  the  history 
of  the  flood,  and  the  preservation  of  Noah  in  an  ark  or  chest.  In  Abydemis's 
History  of  Assyria,  in  passages  quoted  by  Eusebius,  mention  is  made  of  an  ancient 
prince  of  the  name  of  Sisithrus,  who  was  forewarned  by  Saturn  of  a  deluge.  In 
this  account,  the  ship,  the  sending  forth  and  returning  of  the  birds,  the  abating 
of  the  waters,  and  the  resting  of  the  ship  on  a  mountain,  are  all  mentioned. 
(Euseb.  Prsep.  Evang.  lib.  9,  c.  12. — Grotius  on  the  Christian  Religion,  lib.  1, 
sec.  16.)  Lucian,  in  his  book  concerning  the  goddess  of  Syria,  mentions  the 
Syrian  traditions  as  to  this  event.  Hero  Noah  is  called  Deucalion,  and  that  he 
was  tho  person  intended  under  this  name  is  rendered  indubitable  by  the  mention 
of  the  wickedness  of  tho  antediluvians,  tho  piety  of  Deucalion,  the  ark,  and  the 
bringing  into  it  of  the  boasts  of  the  earth  by  pairs.  The  ancient  Persian  tradi- 
tions, as  Dr.  Hyde  has  shown,  though  mixed  with  fable,  havo  a  substantial 
agreement  witli  the  Mosaic  account.  In  Hindostan,  the  ancient  poem  of 
Bhagavot  treats  of  a  flood  which  destroyed  all  mankind,  except  a  pious  prince, 
with  seven  of  his  attendants  and  their  wives.  The  Chinese  writers  in  like 
manner  make  mention  of  a  universal  flood.  In  the  legends  of  the  ancient 
Egyptians,  Goths,  and  Druids,  striking  references  are  made  to  the  same  event ; 
{Edda,  Fab.  4 ;  Davies's  Mythology  of  the  British  Druids,  p.  226,)  and  it  was 
found  represented  in  the  historical  paintings  of  the  Mexicans,  and  among  the 
American  nations.  The  natives  of  Otaheite  believed  that,  tho  world  was  torn 
in  pieces  formerly  by  the  anger  of  their  gods  ;  the  inhabitants  of  the  Sandwich 
Islands  have  a  tradition  that  tho  Etooa,  who  created  the  world,  afterward  de- 
stroyed it  by  an  inundation ;  and  recollections  of  the  same  event  are  preserved 
among  the  New  Zealanders,  as  the  author  had  the  opportunity  of  ascertaining 


38  THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES.  [PAM 

lately  in  a  conversation  with  two  of  their  chiefs,  through  an  interpreter.  For 
large  illustrations  of  this  point,  see  Bryant's  Heathen  Mythology,  and  Faber's 
Horte  Mosaicm. 

Sacrifice. — The  great  principle  of  the  three  dispensations  of  religion  in  the 
Scriptures, — The  Patriarchal,  the  Mosaic,  and  the  Christian, — that  without  shed- 
ding of  blood  there  is  no  remission,  has  fixed  itself  in  every  pagan  religion  of 
ancient  and  modern  times.  For  though  the  followers  of  Budhu  are  forbidden  to 
offer  sanguinary  sacrifices  to  him,  they  offer  them  to  demons  in  order  to  avert 
various  evils  ;  and  their  presentation  of  flowers  and  fruits  to  Budhu  himself  shows, 
that  one  part  of  the  original  rite  of  sacrifice  has  been  retained,  though  the  other, 
through  a  philosophic  refinement,  is  given  up.  Sacrifices  are,  however,  offered 
in  China,  where  the  most  ancient  form  of  Budhuism  generally  prevails ;  a  pre. 
sumption  that  the  Budhuism  of  Ceylon,  and  some  parts  of  India,  is  a  refinement 
upon  a  more  ancient  system.  "  That  the  practice  of  devoting  piacular  victims 
has,  at  one  period  or  another,  prevailed  in  every  quarter  of  the  globe  ;  and  that  it 
has  been  alike  adopted  by  the  most  barbarous  and  by  the  most  civilized  nations, 
can  scarcely  be  said  to  need  regular  and  formal  proof." 

Expectation  of  a  Deliverer. — Amidst  the  miseries  of  succeeding  ages,  the 
ancient  pagan  world  was  always  looking  forward  to  the  appearance  of  a  great 
Deliverer  and  Restorer,  and  this  expectation  was  so  general,  that  it  is  impossible 
to  account  for  it  but  from  "the  promises  made  unto  the  fathers,"  beginning  with 
the  promise  of  conquest  to  the  seed  of  the  woman  over  the  power  of  the  serpent. 
It  is  a  singular  fact,  and  still  worthy  of  remark,  though  so  often  stated,  that,  a 
little  before  our  Lord's  advent,  an  expectation  of  the  speedy  appearance  of  this 
Deliverer  was  general  among  the  nations  of  antiquity.  "  The  fact,"  says  Bishop 
Horsely,  "  is  so  notorious  to  all  who  have  any  knowledge  of  antiquity,  that  if  any 
one  would  deny  it,  I  would  decline  all  dispute  with  such  an  adversary,  as  too 
ignorant  to  receive  conviction,  or  too  disingenuous  to  acknowledge  what  he  must 
secretly  admit."  It  is  another  singular  fact,  that  Virgil,  in  his  Pollio,  by  an  appli- 
cation of  the  Sybilline  verses,  which  are  almost  literally  in  the  high  and  glowing 
strains  in  which  Isaiah  prophesies  of  Christ,  to  a  child  of  his  friend,  one  of  the 
Roman  consuls,  whose  birth  was  just  expected,  and  that  out  of  an  extravagant 
flattery,  should  call  the  attention  of  the  world  to  those  singular  and  mysterious 
books,  so  shortly  before  the  birth  of  him  who  alone  could  fulfil  the  prophecies 
they  contain.  For  a  farther  account  of  the  Sybilline  verses,  the  reader  is  referred 
to  Prideaux's  Connection,  to  Bishop  Lowth's  Dissertations,  and  to  Bishop  Horsley'f 
Dissertation  on  the  Prophecies  of  the  Messiah,  dispersed  among  the  heathen.  It 
is  enough  here  to  say,  that  it  is  a  historical  fact,  that  the  Sybilline  books  existed 
among  the  Romans  from  an  early  period ; — that  these  oracles  of  the  CumaBan 
Sybil  were  held  in  such  veneration,  that  the  book  which  contained  them  was 
deposited  in  a  stone  chest  in  the  temple  of  Jupiter,  in  the  capitol,  and  committed 
to  the  care  of  two  persons  appointed  to  that  office  expressly ; — that  about  a  cen- 
tury before  our  Saviour's  birth,  the  book  was  destroyed  in  the  fire  which  consumed 
the  temple  in  which  it  was  deposited ; — that  the  Roman  Senate  knew  that  similar 
oracles  existed  among  other  nations,  for  to  repair  that  loss,  they  sent  persons  to 
make  a  new  collection  of  these  oracles,  in  different  parts  of  Asia,  in  the  islands 
of  the  Archipelago,  in  Africa,  and  in  Sicily,  who  returned  with  about  a  thousand 
verses,  which  were  deposited  in  the  place  of  the  originals,  and  kept  with  the  same 
care ; — and  that  the  predictions  which  Virgil  weaves  into  his  fourth  Eclogue,  of 
the  appearance  of  a  king  whose  monarchy  was  to  be  universal,  and  who  was  to 
bestow  upon  mankind  the  blessings  he  describes,  were  contained  in  them.  It 
follows,  therefore,  that  such  predictions  existed  anciently  among  the  Romans ; 
that  they  were  found  in  many  other  parts  of  Europe,  and  Asia,  and  Africa ;  and 


FIRST.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  39 

that  they  had  so  marvellous  an  agreement  with  the  predictions  of  the  Jewish 
prophets,  that  either  they  were  in  part  copies  from  them,  or  predictions  of  an 
inspiration  equally  sacred — the  fragments  of  very  ancient  prophecy  interwoven 
probably  with  the  fables  of  later  times.  "  If,"  as  Bishop  Horsley  justly  observes, 
*•  any  illiterate  persons  were  to  hear  Virgil's  posm  read,  with  the  omission  of  a 
few  allusions  to  the  heathen  mythology,  which  would  not  affect  the  general 
sense  of  it,  he  would  without  hesitation  pronounce  it  to  be  a  prophecy  of  the 
Messiah."  It  might  seem  indeed  that  the  poet  had  only  in  many  passages  trans- 
lated Isaiah,  did  he  not  expressly  attribute  the  predictions  he  has  introduced  into 
his  poem  to  the  Cumasan  Sybil ;  which  he  would  not  have  done  if  such  passages 
had  not  been  found  in  the  oracles,  because  they  were  then  in  existence,  and  their 
contents  were  known  to  many.  The  subsequent  forgeries  of  these  oracles  in  the 
first  ages  of  the  Church,  also,  prove  at  least  this,  that  the  true  Sybilline  verses 
contained  prophetic  passages  capable  of  a  strong  application  to  the  true  universal 
Deliverer,  which  thoso  pious  frauds  aimed  at  making  more  particular  and  more 
convincing.  Those  who  do  not  read  Latin  may  consult  "  the  Messiah"  of  Pope, 
with  the  principal  passages  from  Virgil  in  the  notes,  translated  and  collated  with 
prophecies  from  Isaiah,  which  will  put  them  in  possession  of  the  substance  of  this 
singular  and  most  interesting  production. 

Nor  is  it  only  on  the  above  points  that  wo  perceive  the  ancient  traditions  and 
opinions  preserved  in  their  grand  outline  among  different  heathen  nations,  but  also 
in  the  Scriptural  doctrine  of  tho  destruction  of  the  present  system  of  material  nature. 
The  Pythagoreans,  Platonists,  Epicureans,  Stoics,  all  had  notions  of  a  general 
conflagration.     After  the  doctrine  of  the  Stoics,  Ovid  thus  speaks,  Metam.  lib.  1. 

"  Esse  quoque  in  fatis  reminiscitur  affore  tempus 
Quo  mare,  quo  tellus,  correptaquo  regio  cceli 
Ardeat,  et  mundi  moles  operosa  laboret." 

Rememb'ring  in  the  fates  a  time  when  fire 

Should  to  the  battlements  of  heaven  aspire, 

When  all  his  blazing  worlds  above  should  burn, 

And  all  the'  inferior  globe  to  cinders  turn.  Dryden. 

Seneca,  speaking  of  the  same  event,  ad  Merciam  c.  ult.,  says,  "  Tempus  adve. 
niret  quo  aidera  sideribus  incurrent,  $c.  The  time  will  come  when  the  whole 
world  will  be  consumed,  that  it  may  be  again  renewed,  when  the  powers  of  nature 
will  be  turned  against  herself,  when  stars  will  rush  on  stars,  and  the  whole  mate 
rial  world,  which  now  appears  so  resplendent  with  beauty  and  harmony,  will  be 
destroyed  in  one  general  conflagration.  In  this  grand  catastrophe  of  naturo,  all 
animated  beings,  (excepting  the  universal  intelligence,)  men,  heroes,  demons,  and 
gods,  shall  perish  together." 

The  same  tradition  presents  itself  in  different  forms  in  all  leading  systems  of 
modern  paganism. 


Note  B. — Page  32. 

Of  the  controversy  as  to  Zoroaster,  Zeratusht,  or  Zertushta,  and  the  sacretl 
books  said  to  have  been  written  by  him  called  Zend,  or  Zendavesta,  which  has 
divided  critics  so  eminent,  it  would  answer  no  important  end  to  give  an  abstract. 
Those  who  wish  for  information  on  the  subject  are  referred  to  Hyde's  Religio 
Veterum  Persarum ;   Piudeaux's  Connection ;   Warburton's  Divine  Legation; 


40  THEOLOGICAL   INSTITUTES.  [PART 

Bryant's  Mythology ;  The  Universal  History;  Sir  W.  Jones's  Works,  vol.  iii,  p. 
115;  M.  Du  Perron,  and  Richardson's  Dissertation  prefixed  to  his  Persian  and 
Arabic  Dictionary.  But  whatever  may  become  of  the  authority  of  the  whole  or 
part  of  the  Zendavesta,  and  with  whatever  fables  the  History  of  the  Reformer  of 
the  Magian  religion  may  be  mixed,  the  learned  are  generally  agreed  that  such  a 
reformation  took  place  by  his  instrumentality.  "  Zeratusht,"  says  Sir  W.  Jones, 
"  reformed  the  old  religion  by  the  addition  of  genii  or  angels,  of  new  ceremonies 
in  the  veneration  shown  to  fire,  of  a  new  work  which  he  pretended  to  have 
received  from  heaven,  and,  above  all,  by  establishing  the  actual  adoration  of  the 
Supreme  Being,"  and  he  farther  adds,  "  The  reformed  religion  of  Persia  continued 
in  force  till  that  country  was  conquered  by  the  Musselmans  ;  and,  without  study- 
ing the  Zend,  we  have  ample  information  concerning  it  in  the  modern  Persian 
writings  of  several  who  profess  it.  Bahman  always  named  Zeratusht  with  reve- 
rence ;  he  was  in  truth  a  pure  Theist,  and  strongly  disclaimed  any  adoration  of 
the  fire  or  other  elements,  and  he  denied  that  the  doctrine  of  two  coeval  princi- 
ples, supremely  good,  and  supremely  bad,  formed  any  part  of  his  faith."  "  The 
Zeratusht  of  Persia,  or  the  Zoroaster  of  the  Greeks,"  says  Richardson,  "  was 
highly  celebrated  by  the  most  discerning  people  of  ancient  times ;  and  his  tenets, 
we  are  told,  were  most  eagerly  and  rapidly  embraced  by  the  highest  in  rank,  and 
the  wisest  men  in  the  Persian  empire." — Dissertation  prefixed  to  his  Persian 
Dictionary.  He  distinguished  himself  by  denying  that  good  and  evil,  represented 
by  light  and  darkness,  were  coeval,  independent  principles,  and  asserted  the  supre- 
macy of  the  true  God,  and  exact  conformity  with  the  doctrine  contained  in  a 
part  of  that  celebrated  prophecy  of  Isaiah,  in  which  Cyrus  is  mentioned  by  name. 
"  I  am  the  Lord,  and  there  is  none  else,  there  is  no  God  beside  me,"  no  coeval 
power.  "  I  form  the  light,  and  create  darkness,  I  make  peace,  or  good,  and  ere- 
ate  evil,  I  the  Lord  do  all  these  things."  Fire  by  Zerdushta  appears  to  have 
been  used  emblematically  only,  and  the  ceremonies  for  preserving  and  transmit- 
ting it,  introduced  by  him,  were  manifestly  taken  from  the  Jews,  and  the  sacred 
fire  of  their  tabernacle  and  temple. 

The  old  religion  of  the  Persians  was  corrupted  by  Sabianism,  or  the  worship  of 
the  host  of  heaven,  with  its  accompanying  superstition.  The  Magian  doc- 
trine, whatever  it  might  be  at  first,  had  degenerated,  and  two  eternal  principles, 
good  and  evil,  had  been  introduced.  It  was  therefore  necessarily  idolatrous 
also,  and,  like  all  other  false  systems,  flattering  to  the  vicious  habits  of  the  peo 
pie.  So  great  an  improvement  in  the  moral  character  and  influence  of  the  religion 
of  a  whole  nation  as  was  effected  by  Zoroaster,  a  change  which  is  not  certainly 
paralleled  in  the  history  of  tho  religion  of  mankind,  can  scarcely  therefore  be 
thought  possible,  except  we  suppose  a  Divine  interposition,  either  directly,  or  by 
the  occurrence  of  some  very  impressive  events.  Now,  as  there  are  so  many  autho- 
rities for  fixing  the  time  of  Zoroaster  or  Zeratusht  not  many  years  subsequent  to 
the  death  of  the  great  Cyrus,  the  events  to  which  we  have  referred  in  the  text 
are  those,  and  indeed  the  only  ones,  which  will  account  for  his  success  in  that 
reformation  of  religion  of  which  he  was  the  author :  for  had  not  the  minds  of  men 
been  prepared  for  this  change  by  something  extraordinary,  it  is  not  supposable 
that  they  would  have  adopted  a  purer  faith  from  him.  That  he  gave  them  a 
better  doctrine  is  clear  from  the  admissions  of  even  Dean  Prideaux,  who  has 
very  Unjustly  branded  him  as  an  impostor.  Let  it  then  be  remembered,  that  as 
"the  Most  High  ruleth  in  the  kingdoms  of  men,"  he  often  overrules  great  poli- 
tical events  for  moral  purposes.  The  Jews  were  sent  into  captivity  to  Babylon 
to  be  reformed  from  their  idolatrous  propensities,  and  their  reformation  com- 
menced with  their  calamity.     A  miracle  waB  there  wrought  in  favour  of  the 


FIRST.]  THEOLOGICAL   INSTITUTES.  41 

three  Hebrews,  confessors  of  one  only  God,  and  that  under  circumstances  to 
put  shame  upon  a  popular  idol  in  the  presence  of  the  king,  and  "all  the  rulers 
of  the  provinces,"  that  the  issue  of  this  controversy  between  Jehovah  and  idolatry 
might  be  made  known  throughout  that  vast  empire.  Worship  was  refused  to  the 
idol  by  a  few  Hebrew  captives,  and  the  idol  had  no  power  to  punish  the  public 
affront : — the  servants  of  Jehovah  were  cast  into  a  furnace,  and  he  delivered 
them  unhurt ;  and  a  royal  decree  declared  "  that  there  was  no  god  who  could 
deliver  after  this  sort."  The  proud  monarch  himself  is  smitten  with  a  singular 
disease ; — he  remains  subject  to  it  until  he  acknowledges  the  true  God ;  and, 
upon  his  recovery,  he  publicly  ascribes  to  him  both  the  justice  and  the  mercy  of 
the  punishment.  This  event  takes  place  also  in  the  accomplishment  of  a  dream 
which  none  of  tho  wise  men  of  Babylon  could  interpret :  it  was  interpreted  by 
Daniel,  who  made  tho  fulfilment  to  redound  to  the  honour  of  tho  true  God,  by 
ascribing  to  him  the  perfection  of  knowing  the  future,  which  none  of  the  false 
gods,  appealed  to  by  the  Chaldean  sages,  possessed  ;  as  the  inability  of  their  ser 
vants  to  interpret  the  dream  sufficiently  proved.  After  these  singular  events, 
Cyrus' takes  Babylon,  and  he  finds  there  the  sage  and  tho  statesman,  Daniel,  the 
worshipper  of  the  God  "who  creates  both  good  and  evil,"  *'  who  makes  the  light 
and  forms  the  darkness."  There  is  moral  certainty,  that  he  and  the  principal 
Persians  throughout  the  empire  would  have  the  prophecy  of  Isaiah  respecting 
Cyrus,  delivered  more  than  a  hundred  years  before  ho  was  born,  and  in  which 
his  name  stood  recorded,  along  with  the  predicted  circumstances  of  the  caption 
of  Babylon,  pointed  out  to  them ;  as  every  reason,  religious  and  political,  urged 
the  Jews  to  make  the  prediction  a  matter  of  notoriety  :  and  from  Cyrus's  decree 
in  Ezra  it  is  certain  that  he  was  acquainted  with  it,  because  there  is  in  the  decree 
an  obvious  reference  to  the  prophecy.  This  prophecy  so  strangely  fulfilled  would 
give  mighty  force  to  the  doctrine  connected  with  it,  and  which  it  proclaims  with 
so  much  majesty. 

"  I  am  Jehovah,  and  none  else, 
Forming  light,  and  creating  darkness, 
Making  peace,  and  creating  evil, 
I  Jehovah  am  the  author  of  all  these  things." 

Lowth's  Translation. 

Here  the  great  principle  of  corrupted  Magianism  was  directly  attacked ;  and 
in  proportion  as  the  fulfilment  of  the  prophecy  was  felt  to  be  singular  and  strik. 
ing,  the  doctrine  blended  with  it  would  attract  notice.  Its  force  was  both  felt 
and  acknowledged,  as  we  have  seen  in  the  decree  of  Cyrus  for  the  rebuilding  of 
the  temple.  In  that,  Cyrus  acknowledged  the  true  God  to  be  supreme,  and  thus 
renounced  his  former  faith  ;  and  the  example,  the  public  example  of  a  prince 
so  beloved,  and  whose  reign  was  so  extended,  could  not  fail  to  influence  the 
religious  opinions  of  his  people.  That  the  effect  did  not  terminate  in  Cyrus  we 
know ;  for  from  the  book  of  Erra,  it  appears  that  both  Darius  and  Artaxerxes 
made  decrees  in  favour  of  the  Jews,  in  which  Jehovah  has  the  emphatic  appellation 
repeatedly  given  to  him,  *'  the  God  of  heaven ;"  the  very  terms  used  by  Cyrus 
himself.  Nor  are  we  to  suppose  the  impression  confined  to  the  court ;  for  the  history 
of  the  three  Hebrew  youths ;  of  Nebuchadnezzar's  dream,  sickness,  and  reforma- 
tion from  idolatry ;  of  the  interpretation  of  the  handwriting  on  the  wall  by 
Daniel,  the  servant  of  the  living  God ;  of  his  deliverance  from  the  lions  ;  and  the 
publicity  of  the  prophecy  of  Isaiah  respecting  Cyrus,  were  too  recent,  too  public, 
and  too  striking  in  their  nature,  not  to  be  often  and  largely  talked  of.  Beside, 
in  the  prophecy  respecting  Cyrus,  the  intention  of  almighty  God  in  recording 


42  THEOLOGICAL   INSTITUTES.  [PART 

the  name  of  that  monarch  in  an  inspired  book,  and  showing  beforehand  that  he 
had  chosen  him  to  overturn  the  Babylonian  empire,  is  expressly  mentioned  as 
having  respect  to  two  great  objects,  First,  The  deliverance  of  Israel,  and  Second, 
The  making  known  his  supreme  Divinity  among  the  nations  of  the  earth.  I  again 
quote  Lowth's  translation : — 

"  For  the  sake  of  my  servant  Jacob 
And  of  Israel  my  chosen, 
I  have  even  called  thee  by  thy  name, 
I  have  surnamed  thee,  though  thou  knewest  me  not. 
I  am  Jehovah,  and  none  else, 
Beside  me  there  is  no  God ; 

I  will  gird  thee,  though  thou  hast  not  known  me, 
That  they  may  know,  from  the  rising  of  the  sun, 
And  from  the  west,  that  there  is  none  beside  me  ;"  &c. 

It  was  therefore  intended  by  this  proceeding  on  the  part  of  Providence,  to 
teach  not  only  Cyrus,  but  the  people  of  his  vast  empire,  and  surrounding  nations, 
First,  That  He  was  Jehovah,  the  self-subsistent,  the  eternal  God ;  Second,  That 
he  was  God  alone,  there  being  no  Deity  beside  himself;  and  Third,  That  good 
and  evil,  represented  by  light  and  darkness,  were  neither  independent  nor  eternal 
subsistences ;  but  his  great  instruments  and  under  his  control. 

The  Persians,  who  had  so  vastly  extended  their  empire  by  the  conquest  of  the 
countries  formerly  held  by  the  monarchs  of  Babylon,  were  thus  prepared  for 
such  a  reformation  of  their  religion  as  Zoroaster  effected.  The  principles  he 
advocated  had  been  previously  adopted  by  several  of  the  Persian  monarchs,  and 
probably  by  many  of  the  principal  persons  of  that  nation.  Zoroaster  himself 
thus  became  acquainted  with  the  great  truths  contained  in  this  famous  prophecy, 
which  attacked  the  very  foundations  of  every  idolatrous  and  Manichean  system. 
From  the  other  sacred  books  of  the  Jews,  who  mixed  with  the  Persians  in  every 
part  of  the  empire,  he  evidently  learned  more.  This  is  sufficiently  proved  from 
the  many  points  of  similarity  between  his  religion  and  Judaism,  though  he 
should  not  be  allowed  to  speak  so  much  in  the  style  of  the  Holy  Scriptures  as 
some  passages  in  the  Zendavesta  would  indicate.  He  found  the  people  however 
"prepared  of  the  Lord"  to  admit  his  reformations,  and  he  carried  them.  I  can. 
not  but  look  upon  this  as  one  instance  of  several  merciful  dispensations  of  God 
to  the  Gentile  world,  through  his  own  peculiar  people  the  Jews,  by  which  the 
idolatries  of  the  heathen  were  often  checked,  and  the  light  of  truth  rekindled 
among  them.  In  this  view  the  ancient  Jews  evidently  considered  the  Jewish 
Church  as  appointed  not  to  preserve  only  but  to  extend  true  religion.  "  God  be 
merciful  to  us  and  bless  us,  that  thy  ways  may  be  known  upon  earth,  thy  saving 
health  unto  all  nations."  This  renders  pagan  nations  more  evidently  "  without 
excuse."  That  this  dispensation  of  mercy  was  afterward  neglected  among  the 
Persians  is  certain.  How  long  the  effect  continued  we  know  not,  nor  how  widely 
it  spread ;  perhaps  longer  and  wider  than  may  now  distinctly  appear.  If  the 
Magi,  who  came  from  the  east  to  see  Christ,  were  Persians,  some  true  worship- 
pers of  God  would  appear  to  have  remained  in  Persia  to  that  day  ;  and  if,  as  is 
probable,  the  prophecies  of  Isaiah  and  Daniel  were  retained  among  them,  they 
might  be  among  those  who  "  waited  for  redemption,"  not  at  Jerusalem,  but  in  a 
distant  part  of  the  world.  The  Parsees,  who  were  nearly  extirpated  by  Moham- 
medan fanaticism,  were  charged  by  their  oppressors  with  the  idolatry  of  fire,  and 
this  was  probably  true  of  the  multitude.     Some  of  their  writers  however  warmly 


FIRST.]  THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES.  43 

defended  themselves  against  the  charge.     A  considerable  number  of  them  remain 
in  India  to  this  day,  and  profess  to  have  the  books  of  Zoroaster. 

This  note  contains  a  considerable  digression,  but  its  connection  with  the  argu- 
ment in  the  text  is  obvious.  He  who  rejects  the  authority  of  the  Scriptures 
will  not  be  influenced  by  what  has  been  said  of  the  prophecies  of  Isaiah,  or  the 
events  of  the  life  of  Daniel ;  but  still  it  is  not  to  be  denied,  that  while  the  Persian 
empire  remained,  a  Persian  moral  philosopher  who  taught  sublime  doctrines  flou- 
rished, and  that  his  opinions  had  great  influence.  The  connection  of  the 
Jews  and  Persians  is  an  undeniable  matter  of  historic  fact.  The  tenets  ascribed 
to  Zoroaster  bear  the  marks  of  Jewish  origin,  because  they  are  mingled  with 
some  of  the  peculiar  rites  and  circumstances  of  the  Jewish  temple.  From  this 
source  the  theology  of  the  Persians  received  improvements  in  correct  and 
influential  notions  of  Deity  especially,  and  was  enriched  with  the  history  and 
doctrines  of  the  Mosaic  records.  The  affairs  of  the  Greeks  were  so  interwoven 
with  those  of  the  Persians,  that  the  sages  of  Greece  could  not  be  ignorant  of  the 
opinions  of  Zertushta,  known  to  them  by  the  name  of  Zoroaster,  and  from  this 
school  some  of  their  best  notions  were  derived. 


Note  C— Page  35. 

The  greatest  corruptions  of  religion  are  to  be  traced  to  superstition,  and  to 
that  vain  and  bewildering  habit  of  philosophizing,  which  obtained  among  the 
ancients.  Superstition  was  the  besetting  sin  of  the  ignorant,  vain  speculation 
of  the  intelligent.  Both  sprung  from  the  vicious  state  of  the  heart ;  the  expres- 
sion was  different,  but  the  effect  the  same.  The  evil  probably  arose  in  Egypt,  and 
was  largely  improved  upon  by  the  philosophers  of  Greece  and  India.  Systems, 
hypotheses,  cosmogonies,  &c,  are  all  the  work  of  philosophy ;.  and  the  most  sub- 
tle and  bewildering  errors,  such  as  the  eternity  of  matter,  the  metempsychosis, 
the  absorption  of  the  human  soul  at  death,  &c,  have  sprung  from  them. — 
Ancient  wisdom,  both  religious  and  moral,  was  contained  in  great  principles, 
expressed  in  maxims,  without  affectation  of  systematic  relation  and  arrangement, 
and  without  any  deep  research  into  reasons  and  causes.  The  moment  philoso- 
phy attempted  this,  the  weakness  and  waywardness  of  the  human  mind  began  to 
display  themsolves.  Theories  sprung  up  in  succession ;  and  confusion  and 
contradiction  at  length  produced  skepticism  in  all,  and  in  many  matured  it  into 
total  unbelief.  The  speculative  habit  affected  at  once  the  opinions  of  ancient 
Africa  and  Asia ;  and  in  India,  the  philosophy  of  Egypt  and  Greece  remains  to 
this  day,  ripened  into  its  full  bearing  of  deleterious  fruit. 

The  similarity  of  the  Greek  and  modern  Asiatic  systems  is  indeed  a  very 
curious  subject ;  for  in  the  latter  is  exhibited  at  this  day  the  philosophy  of  pagan- 
ism, while  in  other  places  false  religion  is  seen  only  or  chiefly  in  its  simplo  form 
of  superstition.  The  coincidence  of  the  Hindoo  and  Greek  mythology  has  been 
traced  by  Sir  W.  Jones ;  and  his  opinions  on  this  subject  are  strongly  confirmed 
by  the  still  more  striking  coincidence  in  the  doctrines  of  the  Hindoo  and  Grecian 
philosophical  sects.  "The  period,"  says  Mr.  Ward,  (View  of  the  History  of  the 
Hindoos,  <J-c,)  "when  the  most  eminent  of  the  Hindoo  philosophers  flourished, 
is  still  involved  in  much  obscurity  ;  but  the  apparent  agreement  in  many  striking 
particulars  between  the  Hindoo  and  the  Greek  systems  of  philosophy,  not  only 
suggests  the  idea  of  some  union  in  their  origin,  but  strongly  pleads  for  their 
oelonging  to  one  age,    notwithstanding  the  unfathomable  antiquity  claimed  bv 


44  THEOLOGICAL   INSTITUTES.  [PART 

the  Hindoos ;  and  after  the  reader  shall  have  compared  the  two  systems,  the 
author  is  persuaded  he  will  not  consider  the  conjecture  as  improbable,  that  Pytha- 
goras and  others  did  really  visit  India,  or  that  Goutumu  and  Pythagoras  were 
cotemporaries,  or  nearly  so."  (Vol.  4.) 

Many  of  the  subjects  discussed  among  the  Hindoos  were  the  very  subjects  which 
excited  the  disputes  in  the  Greek  academies,  such  as  the  eternity  of  matter,  the 
first  cause ;  God  the  soul  of  the  world ;  the  doctrine  of  atoms ;  creation ;  the 
nature  of  the  gods ;  the  doctrines  of  fate,  transmigration,  successive  revolutions 
of  worlds,  absorption  into  the  Divine  BeingJ"  &c.    (Ibid.  p.  115.) 

Mr.  Ward  enters  at  large  into  this  coincidence  in  his  introductory  remarks  to 
his  fourth  volume,  to  which  the  reader  is  referred.  It  shall  only  be  observed, 
that  those  speculations,  and  subtle  arguments  just  mentioned,  both  in  the  Greek 
and  Asiatic  branches  of  pagan  philosophy,  gave  birth  to  absolute  Atheism. — 
Several  of  the  Greek  philosophic  sects,  as  is  well  known,  were  professedly  Athe- 
istic. Cudworth  enumerates  four  forms  assumed  by  this  species  of  unbelief. — 
The  same  principles  which  distinguish  their  sects  may  be  traced  in  several  of 
those  of  the  Hindoos,  and  above  all  the  Atheistical  system  of  Budhoo,  branched 
off"  from  the  vain  philosophy  of  the  Brachminical  schools,  and  has  extended  farther 
than  Hindooism  itself.  The  reason  of  all  this  is  truly  given  by  Bishop  Warbur- 
ton,  as  to  the  Greeks,  and  it  is  equally  applicable  to  the  Asiatic  philosophy  of 
the  present  day,  which  is  so  clearly  one  and  the  same,  and  also  to  many  errors 
which  have  crept  into  the  Church  of  Christ  itself.  "  The  philosophy  of  the 
Greeks,"  he  observes,  led  to  unbelief,  "  because  it  was  above  measure  refined  and 
speculative,  and  used  to  be  determined  by  metaphysical  rather  than  by  moral 
principles,  and  to  stick  to  all  consequences,  how  absurd  soever,  that  were  seen  to 
arise  from  such  principles." 


CHAPTER  VI. 

The  Necessity  of  Revelation ; — State  of  Religious  Knowledge  among  the 

Heathen. 

Several  presumptive  arguments  have  been  offered  in  favour  of  the 
opinion,  that  almighty  God  in  his  goodness  has  made  an  express  reve- 
lation of  his  will  to  mankind.  They  have  been  drawn  from  the  fact, 
that  we  are  moral  agents,  and  therefore  under  a  law  or  rule  of  conduct 
— from  the  consideration  that  no  law  can  be  binding  till  made  known,  or 
at  least  rendered  cognizable  by  those  whom  it  is  intended  to  govern — 
from  the  inability  of  the  generality  of  men  to  collect  any  adequate  inform- 
ation on  moral  and  religious  subjects  by  processes  of  induction — from 
the  insufficiency  of  reason,  even  in  the  wisest,  to  make  any  satisfactory 
discovery  of  the  first  principles  of  religion  and  duty — from  the  want  of 
all  authority  and  influence  in  such  discoveries,  upon  the  majority  of 
mankind,  had  a  few  minds  of  superior  order  and  with  more  favourable 
opportunities  been  capable  of  making  them — -from  the  fact  that  no  such 
discovery  was  ever  made  by  the  wisest  of  the  ancient  sages,  inasmuch 
as  the  truths  they  held  were  in  existence  before  their  day,  even  in  the 
earliest  periods  of  the  patriarchal  ages — and  from  the  fact,  that  whatever 


FIRST.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  46 

truths  they  collected  from  early  tradition,  or  from  the  descendants  of 
Abraham,  mediately  or  immediately,  they  so  corrupted  under  the  pre- 
tence of  improving  them,  (5)  as  to  destroy  their  harmony  and  moral 
influence,  thereby  greatly  weakening  the  probability  that  moral  truth 
was  ever  an  object  of  the  steady  and  sincere  pursuit  of  men.  To  these 
presumptions  in  favour  of  an  express  revelation,  written,  preserved  with 
care,  and  appointed  to  be  preached  and  published  under  the  authority  of 
its  author,  for  the  benefit  of  all,  wise  or  unwise,  we  may  add  the  power- 
ful presumption  which  is  afforded  by  the  necessity  of  the  case.  This 
necessity  of  a  revelation  is  to  be  collected,  not  only  from  what  has  been 
advanced,  but  from  the  state  of  moral  and  religious  knowledge  and  prac- 
tice, in  those  countries  where  the  records  which  profess  to  contain  the 
Mosaic  and  the  Christian  revelations  have  been  or  are  still  unknown. 
The  necessity  of  immediate  Divine  instruction  was  acknowledged  by 
many  of  the  wisest  and  most  inquiring  of  the  heathen,  under  the  con- 
viction of  the  entire  inability  of  man  unassisted  by  God  to  discover  truth 
with  certainty, — so  greatly  had  the  primitive  traditional  revelations  been 
obscured  by  errors  before  the  times  of  the  most  ancient  of  those  sages 
among  the  heathen,  whose  writings  have  in  whole  or  in  part  been  trans- 
mitted to  us,  and  so  little  confidence  had  they  in  themselves  to  separate 
truth  from  error,  or  to  say,  "  This  is  true  and  that  false."  And  as  the 
necessity  of  an  express  and  authenticated  revelation  was  acknowledged, 
so  it  was  publicly  exhibited,  because  on  the  very  first  principles  of  reli- 
gion and  morals,  there  was  either  entire  ignorance,  or  no  settled  and 
consonant  opinions,  even  among  the  wisest  of  mankind  themselves.  (6) 

(5)  Plato,  in  his  Epinominis,  acknowledges  that  the  Greeks  learned  many 
things  from  the  harbarians,  though  he  asserts,  that  they  improved  what  they  thus 
borrowed,  and  made  it  better,  especially  in  what  related  to  the  worship  of  the 
gods.     (Plat.  Oper.  p.  703.  Edit.  Ficin.  Lugd.  1590.) 

(6)  Plato,  beginning  his  discourse  of  the  gods  and  the  generation  of  the  world, 
cautions  his  disciples  "  not  to  expect  any  thing  beyond  a  likely  conjecture  concern, 
ing  these  things."  Cicero,  referring  to  the  same  subject,  says,  "Latent  ista  om. 
nia  crassis  occulta  et  circumfusa  tenebris,  all  these  things  are  involved  in  deep 
obscurity." 

The  following  passage  from  the  same  author  may  bo  recommended  to  the  con 
sideration  of  modern  exalters  of  the  power  of  unassisted  reason.  The  treasures 
of  the  philosophy  of  past  ages  were  poured  at  his  feet,  and  he  had  studied  every 
branch  of  human  wisdom,  with  astonishing  industry  and  acuteness,  yet  he  ob- 
serves, "  Quod  si  tales  nos  natura  genuisset,  ut  earn  ipsam  intueri,  et  perspiccre, 
eadomque  optima  duce  cursum  vitee  conficere  possemus  ;  baud  erat  sane  quod 
quisquam  rationem,  ac  doctrinam  requireret.  Nunc  parvulos  nobis  dedit  igni- 
culos,  quos  celeriter  malis  moribus,  opinionibusque  depravati  sic  restinguimus,  ut 
nusquam  natures  lumen  appareat.  If  we  had  come  into  the  world  in  such  cir- 
cumstances, as  that  we  could  clearly  and  distinctly  have  discerned  nature  herself, 
and  have  been  able  in  the  course  of  our  lives  to  follow  her  true  and  uncorrupted 
directions,  this  alone  might  have  been  sufficient,  and  there  would  have  been 
little  need  of  teaching  and  instruction  ;  but  now  nature  has  given  us  only  some 


46  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

Some  proofs  of  this  have  already  been  adduced ;  but  the  importance 
of  the  subject  requires  that  they  should  be  enlarged. 

Though  the  belief  of  one  Supreme  Being  has  been  found  in  many 
parts  of  the  world,  yet  the  notion  of  subordinate  deities,  the  immediate 
dispensers  of  good  and  evil  to  men,  and  the  objects  of  their  fear  and 
worship,  has  almost  equally  obtained  ;  and  this  of  necessity  destroyed  or 
greatly  counteracted  the  moral  influence  of  that  just  opinion. 

"  The  people  generally  among  the  Gentiles,"  says  Dr.  Tenison,  "  did 
rise  little  higher  than  the  objects  of  sense.  They  worshipped  them  each 
as  supreme  in  their  kind,  or  no  otherwise  unequal  than  the  sun,  and  the 
moon,  or  the  other  celestial  bodies,  by  the  adoration  of  which  the  ancient 
idolaters,  as  Job  intimateth,  denied  (or  excluded)  the  God  that  is  above. 
Porphyry  himself,  one  of  the  most  plausible  apologists  for  the  religion 
of  the  Gentiles,  doth  own  in  some  the  most  gross  and  blockish  idolatry 
of  mean  objects.  He  tells  us  that  it  is  not  a  matter  of  which  we  should 
be  amazed,  if  most  ignorant  men  esteemed  wood  and  stones  Divine  sta- 
tues ;  seeing  they  who  are  unlearned  look  upon  monuments  which  have 
inscriptions  upon  them  as  ordinary  stones,  and  regard  books  as  so  many 
bundles  of  paper."  {Discourse  on  Idolatry,  p.  50.)    ' 

The  modern  idolatry  of  Hindostan,  which  in  principle  differs  nothing 
from  that  of  the  ancient  world,  affords  a  striking  comment  upon  this 
point,  and  indeed  is  of  great  importance  in  enabling  us  to  conceive  justly 
of  the  true  character  and  practical  effects  of  idolatry  in  all  ages.  One 
Supreme  Being  is  acknowledged  by  the  Hindoos,  but  they  never  wor- 
ship him,  nor  think  that  he  concerns  himself  with  human  affairs  at  all. 

"  The  Hindoos  believe  in  one  God,  so  completely  abstracted  in  his 
own  essence,  however,  that  in  this  state  he  is  emphatically  the  unknoum, 
and  is  consequently  neither  the  object  of  hope  nor  of  fear  ;  he  is  even 
destitute  of  intelligence,  and  remains  in  a  state  of  profound  repose." 
(Ward's  Hindoo  Mythology,  vol.  ii,  p.  306.) 

"This  Being,"  says  Moore,  (Hindoo  Pantheon,  p.  132,)  "is  called 
Brahm,  one  eternal  mind,  the  self-existing,  incomprehensible  Spirit.  To 
him,  however,  the  Hindoos  erect  no  altars.     The  objects  of  their  adora- 

small  sparks  of  right  reason,  which  we  so  quickly  extinguish  with  corrupt  opin- 
ions and  evil  practices,  that  the  true  light  of  nature  nowhere  appears."  (Tusc. 
Quasi.  3.) 

The  same  author,  (Tusc.  Qucest.  1,)  having  reckoned  up  the  opinions  of  philo- 
sophers as  to  the  soul's  immortality,  concludes  thus,  "  Harum  sententiaruin  quae 
vera  est  Deus  aliquis  viderit,  quas  verisimillima  est,  magna  qusestio  est.  Which 
of  these  opinions  is  true,  some  god  must  tell  us;  which  is  most  like  truth,  is  a 
great  question."  Jamblicus,  speaking  of  the  principles  of  Divine  worship,  saith  : 
"  It  is  manifest  that  those  things  are  to  be  done  which  are  pleasing  to  God  ;  but 
what  they  are,  it  is  not  easy  to  know,  except  a  man  were  taught  them  by  God 
himself,  or  by  some  person  who  had  received  them  from  God,  or  obtained  the 
knowledge  of  them  by  some  Divine  means."  (Jamb,  in  Vit.  Pythag.  c.  28.) 


FIRST.J  THEOLOGICAL   INSTITUTES.  47 

tion  commence  with  the  triad, — Brahma,  Vishnu,  and  Seva,  which  re- 
present  the  almighty  powers  of  creation,  preservation,  and  destruction." 

The  learned  among  the  classic  heathen,  it  is  true,  occasionally 
speak  nobly  concerning  God  and  his  attributes  ;  but  at  the  same  time 
they  were  led  by  their  own  imaginations  and  reasonings  to  conclusions, 
which  neutralize  the  effect  of  their  sublimer  conceptions  and  often  con- 
tradict  them.  The  eternity  of  matter,  for  instance,  was  held  by  the 
Greek  and  Roman  philosophers  and  by  their  preceptors  in  the  oriental 
schools,  who  thought  it  absolutely  impossible  that  any  thing  should  be 
produced  from  nothing,  thus  destroying  the  notion  of  creation  in  its 
proper  sense,  and  of  a  Supreme  Creator.  This  opinion,  as  Bishop 
Stillingfleet  shows,  (Origines  Sacra;,  1.  iii,  c.  2,)  is  contrary  to  the  om- 
nipotence and  independence  of  God,  and  is  a  great  abatement  of  those 
correct  views  which  the  words  of  the  ancient  philosophers  would  seem 
sometimes  to  express.  (7) 

It  had  another  injurious  effect ;  it  destroyed  the  interesting  doctrine 
of  Divine  government  as  to  those  natural  evils  to  which  men  are  subject. 
These  they  traced  to  the  unchangeable  and  eternal  nature  of  matter, 
which  even  the  Supreme  God  could  not  control.  Thus  Seneca  says, 
(De  Provid.  cap.  5,)  "  that  evil  things  happen  to  good  men,  quia  non 
potest  Artifex  mutare  materiam,  because  God  the  Artificer  could  not 
change  matter ;  and  that  a  magno  Artifice  multa  formantur  prava,  many 
things  were  made  ill  by  the  great  Artificer  ;  not  that  he  wanted  art,  but 
through  the  stubbornness  of  matter,"  in  which  they  generally  agree. 
This  opinion  of  theirs  was  brought  from  the  oriental  schools,  where  it 

(7)  When  wo  meet  with  passages  in  the  writings  of  heathens  which  recom- 
mend moral  virtues,  and  speak  in  a  fit  and  becoming  manner  of  God,  we  are  apt 
from  our  more  elevated  knowledge  of  these  subjects  to  attach  more  correct  and 
precise  ideas  to  the  terms  used,  than  the  original  writers  themselves,  and  to  give 
them  credit  for  better  views  than  they  entertained.  It  is  one  proof,  that  though 
some  of  them  speak,  for  instance,  of  God  seeing  and  knowing  all  things,  tbey  did 
not  conceive  of  the  omniscience  of  God  in  the  manner  in  which  that  attribute 
is  expl  lined  by  those  who  have  learned  what  God  is  from  his  own  words;  that 
some  of  tho  pagan  philosophers  who  lived  after  the  Christian  era,  complain  that 
tho  Christians  had  introduced  a  very  troublesome  and  busy  God,  who  did  M  in 
omnium  mores,  actus,  omnium  verba  denique,  et  occultas  cogitationes  diligenter 
inquirere,  diligently  inquire  into  the  manners,  actions,  words,  and  secret  thoughts 
of  all  men."  Cicero,  too,  denies  the  foreknowledge  of  God,  and  for  the  same 
reason  which  has  been  urged  against  it  in  modern  times  by  some  who,  for  tho 
time  at  least,  have  closed  their  eyes  upon  the  testimony  of  the  Scriptures  on  this 
point,  and  been  willing,  in  order  to  &«jrve  a  favourite  theory,  to  go  back  to  tho 
obscurity  of  paganism.  The  difficulty  with  him  is,  that  prescience  is  inconsistent 
with  contingency.  Mihi  ne  in  Deum  cadere  videatur  ut  sciat  quid  casu  et  fortuito 
futurum  sit ;  si  enim  scit,  certe  illud  eveniet ;  si  certe  eveniet,  nulla  fortuna  est ; 
est  autem  fortuna,  rerum  ergo  fortuitarum  nulla  prmsensio  est.  (De  Fato.  n. 
12,  13.) 


48  THEOLOGICAL   INSTITUTES.  [PARI 

had  been  long  received;  nor  was  it  confined  to  Egypt  and  Chaldea. 
It  was  one  of  the  dogmas  which  Confucius  taught  in  China  in  the  fifth 
century  before  Christ,  that  out  of  nothing  that  which  is  cannot  be  pro- 
duced, and  that  material  bodies  must  have  existed  from  all  eternity. 
From  this  notion  it  follows,  that  there  is  no  calamity  to  which  we  are 
not  liable,  and  that  God  himself  is  unable  to  protect  us  from  it.  Prayer 
is  useless,  and  trust  in  him  is  absurd.  The  noble  doctrine  of  the  inflic- 
tion of  misery  by  a  wise  and  gracious  Being  for  our  correction  and 
improvement,  so  often  dwelt  upon  in  Scripture,  could  have  no  place  in 
a  system  which  admitted  this  tenet ;  God  could  neither  be  "  a  refuge 
in  trouble,"  nor  a  Father,  "  correcting  us  for  our  profit,  that  we  might 
be  partakers  of  his  holiness."  What  they  knew  of  God  was  therefore, 
by  such  speculations,  rendered  entirely  unprofitable. 

But  a  worse  consequence  resulted  from  this  opinion.  By  some  ol 
them  the  necessary  obliquity  and  perverseness  of  matter  was  regarded 
not  only  as  the  source  of  natural,  but  also  of  moral  evil ;  by  which 
they  either  made  sin  necessary  and  irresistible,  or  found  in  this  opinion 
much  to  palliate  it. 

Others  refer  moral  evil  to  a  natural  principle  of  evil,  an  evil  god, 
"  emulous  of  the  good  God,"  which  Plutarch  says,  (8)  is  a  tradition  of 
great  antiquity,  derived  "  from  the  divines  ex  GeoXoyuv  and  lawgivers  to 
the  poets  and  philosophers,  whose  first  author  cannot  be  found."  But 
whether  natural  and  moral  evil  be  traced  to  an  eternal  and  uncontrol- 
lable matter,  or  to  an  eternal  and  independent  anti-god,  it  is  clear  that 
the  notion  of  a  Supreme  Deity,  as  contained  in  the  Scriptures,  and  as 
conceived  of  by  modern  Theists,  who  have  borrowed  their  light  from 
them,  could  have  no  existence  in  such  systems ;  and  that  by  making 
moral  evil  necessary,  men  were  taught  to  consider  it  as  a  misfortune 
rather  than  a  crime,  and  were  thus  in  fact  encouraged  to  commit  it 
by  regarding  it  as  unavoidable. 

In  like  manner,  though  occasionally  we  find  many  excellent  things 
said  of  the  providence  of  God,  all  these  were  weakened  or  destroyed  by 
other  opinions.  The  Epicurean  sect  denied  the  doctrine,  and  laid  it 
down  as  a  maxim,  "that  what  was  blessed  and  immortal  gave  neither  any 
trouble  to  itself  nor  to  others  ;"  a  notion  which  exactly  agrees  with  the 
system  of  the  modern  Hindoos.  "  According  to  the  doctrine  of  Aris- 
totle, God  resides  in  the  celestial  sphere,  and  observes  nothing,  and 
cares  for  nothing  beyond  himself.  Residing  in  the  first  sphere,  he  pos- 
sesses neither  immensity  nor  omnipresence  ;  far  removed  from  the  in- 
ferior parts  of  the  universe,  he  is  not  even  a  spectator  of  what  is  pass- 
ing among  its  inhabitants."    (Enfield's  History  of  Philosophy,  lib.  ii, 

(8)  Do  Isid.  et  Osir. — Dr.  Cudworth  thinks  that  Plutarch  has  indulged  in  an 
overstrained  assertion  :  but  the  confidence  with  which  the  philosopher  speaks  is 
at  least  a  proof  of  the  great  extent  of  this  opinion. 


FIRST.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  40 

cap.  9.)  The  Stoics  contended  for  a  providence,  but  in  their  creed  it 
was  counteracted  by  the  doctrine  of  an  absolute  necessity,  or  fate,  tc 
which  God  and  matter,  or  the  universe,  which  consists,  as  they  thought, 
of  both,  was  immutably  subject ;  and  where  they  allow  it,  they  confine 
the  care  of  the  gods  to  great  affairs  only. 

The  Platonists,  and  the  followers  of  Pythagoras  believed  that  all  things 
happened  xara  Qsiav  topovwav,  according  to  Divine  providence;  but 
this  they  overthrew  by  joining  fortune  with  God.  "  God,  fortune,  an«li 
opportunity,"  says  Plato,  "  govern  all  the  affairs  of  men."  (De  Leg.  lib.  4. ) 

To  them  also  there  were  "  Lords  many  and  gods  many :"  and  wherever 
Polytheism  is  admitted,  it  is  as  destructive  of  the  doctrine  of  providence 
as  fate,  though  by  a  different  process.  The  fatalist  makes  all  tilings 
fixed  and  certain,  and  thus  excludes  government ;  the  Polytheist  gives* 
up  the  government  of  the  world  to  innumerable  opposing  and  contrary 
wills,  and  thus  makes  every  thing  uncertain.  If  the  favour  of  one  deity 
be  propitiated,  the  wrath  of  another,  equally  or  more  powerful,  may  be 
provoked  ;  or  the  gods  may  quarrel  among  themselves.  Such  is  the  only 
providence  which  can  be  discovered  in  the  Iliad  of  Homer,  and  the 
JEneid  of  Virgil,  poems  which  unquestionably  embody  the  popular  be- 
lief of  the  times  in  which  they  were  written.  The  same  confused  and 
contradictory  management  of  the  affairs  of  men,  we  see  in  all  modern 
idolatrous  systems,  only  that  with  length  of  duration  they  appear  to  have 
become  more  oppressive  and  distracting.  Where  so  many  deities  are 
essentially  malignant  and  cruel  to  men  ;  where  demons  are  supposed  to 
have  power  to  afflict  and  to  destroy  at  pleasure  ;  and  where  aspects  of 
the  stars,  and  the  screams  of  birds,  and  other  ominous  circumstances,  are 
thought  to  have  an  irresistible  influence  upon  the  fortunes  of  life,  and  the 
occurrences  of  every  day ;  and  especially  where,  to  crown  the  whole, 
there  is  an  utter  ignorance  of  one  supreme  controlling  infinite  mind,  or 
his  existence  is  denied ;  or  he  who  is  capable  of  exercising  such  a  super- 
intendence as  might  render  him  the  object  of  hope,  is  supposed  to  be 
totally  unconcerned  with  human  affairs  ;  there  can  be  no  ground  of  firm 
trust,  no  settled  hope,  no  permanent  consolation.  Timidity  and  gloom 
tenant  every  bosom,  and  in  many  instances  render  life  a  burden.  (9) 

(9)  The  testimony  of  missionaries,  who  see  the  actual  effects  of  paganism  in  tha 
different  countries  where  they  labour,  is  particularly  valuable  On  the  point 
mentioned  in  the  text,  the  Wesleyan  missionaries  thus  speak  of  the  state  of  the 
Cingalese  : — "  Wo  feel  ourselves  incapable  of  giving  you  a  full  view  of  the  de- 
plorable state  of  a  people,  who  believe  that  all  things  aro  governed  by  chance ; 
who  find  malignant  gods,  or  devils,  in  every  planet,  whose  influence  over  man. 
kind  they  consider  to  be  exceeding  great,  and  the  agents  who  inflict  all  the  evil 
that  men  suffer  in  the  world.  A  people  so  circumstanced  need  no  addition  to 
their  miseries,  but  are  objects  toward  which  Christian  pity  will  extend  itself,  as 
tar  as  the  voice  of  their  case  can  reach.  They  are  literally,  through  fear  of  death, 
or  malignant  demons,  all  their  lifetime  subject  to  bondage." 

Vol   I.  4 


50  THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES.  [PART 

Another  great  principle  of  religion  is  the  doctrine  of  a  future  state 
of  rewards  and  punishments  ;  and  though  in  some  form  it  is  recognized 
in  pagan  systems,  and  the  traditions  of  the  primitive  ages  may  be  traced 
in  their  extravagant  perversions  and  fables ;  its  evidence  was  either 
greatly  diminished,  or  it  was  mixed  up  with  notions  entirely  subversive 
of  the  moral  effect  which  it  was  originally  intended  to  produce. 

Of  the  ancient  Chaldean  philosophy,  not  much  is  known.  In  its  best 
state  it  contained  many  of  the  principles  of  the  patriarchal  religion ; 
but  at  length,  as  we  find  from  Scripture,  it  degenerated  into  the  doctrine 
of  judicial  astrology,  which  is  so  nearly  allied  to  fatalism,  as  to  subvert 
the  idea  of  the  present  life  being  a  state  of  probation,  and  the  future  a 
state  of  just  and  gracious  rewards  and  punishments. 

Ancient  writers  differ  as  to  the  opinions  of  the  learned  of  Egypt  on 
the  human  soul.  Diodorus  Siculus  says,  they  believed  its  immortality, 
and  the  future  existence  of  the  just  among  the  gods.  Herodotus 
ascribes  to  them  the  doctrine  of  transmigration.  Both  may  be  recon- 
ciled. The  former  doctrine  was  the  most  ancient,  the  latter  was  in- 
duced  by  that  progress  of  error  which  we  observe  among  all  nations. 
Another  subtle  notion  grew  up  with  it,  which  infected  the  philosophy  of 
Greece,  and,  spreading  throughout  Asia,  has  done  more  to  destroy  the 
moral  effect  of  a  belief  in  the  future  existence  of  man,  than  any  other. 
This  was,  "  that  God  is  the  soul  of  the  world,"  from  which  all  human 
spirits  came,  and  to  which  they  will  return,  some  immediately,  and 
others  through  long  courses  of  transmigration.  The  doctrine  of  ancient 
revelation,  of  which  this  was  a  subtle  and  fatal  perversion,  is  obvious. 
The  Scripture  account  is,  that  the  human  soul  was  from  God  by  creation ; 
the  refinement  of  pagan  philosophy,  that  it  is  from  him  by  emanation,  or 
separation  of  essence,  and  still  remains  a  separate  portion  of  God,  seek- 
ing its  return  to  him.  With  respect  to  the  future,  revelation  always 
taught,  that  the  souls  of  the  just  return  to  God  at  death,  not  to  lose  their 
individuality,  but  to  be  united  to  him  in  holy  and  delightful  communion  : 
the  philosophic  perversion  was,  that  the  parts  so  separated  from  God, 
and  connected  for  a  time  with  matter,  would  be  reunited  to  the  great 
source  by  refusion,  as  a  drop  of  water  to  the  ocean.  (1)  Thus  philo- 
sophy refined  upon  the  doctrine  of  immortality  until  it  converted  it 
into  annihilation  itself,  for  so  it  is  in  the  most  absolute  sense  as  to 
distinct  consciousness  and  personality.  The  prevalence  of  this  notion 
under  different  modifications  is  indeed  very  remarkable. 

(1)  "  Interim  taraen  vix  ulli  fuere  (quae  humanee  mentis  caligo,  atque  imbecil- 
litas  est,)  qui  non  inciderint  in  errorem  ilium  de  refusione  in  Animam  mundi. 
Nirnirum,  sicut  existimarunt  singulorum  animas  particulas  esse  animEB  mundanoo 
quarum  quaelibet  suo  corpore,  ut  aqua  vaso,  cffluere,  ac  animse  mundi,  e  qua 
deducta  fuerit,  iterum  uniri."  (Gasskndi  Animadv.  in  Lib.  10,  Diog  Laertii, 
p.  550.) 


FIRST.]  THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES.  51 

Bishop  Warburton  proves  that  this  opinion  was  held  not  merely  bv 
the  Atheistical  and  skeptical  sects  among  the  Greeks,  but  by  what  he 
calls  the  Philosophic  Quaternion  of  dogmatic  Theists,  the  four  renowned 
schools,  the  Pythagoric,  the  Platonic,  the  Peripatetic,  and  the 
Stoic  ;  and  on  this  ground  argues,  that  though  they  taught  the  doc- 
trine of  future  rewards  and  punishments  to  the  populace,  as  a  means  of 
securing  their  obedience  to  the  laws,  they  themselves  did  not  believe 
what  they  propagated ;  and  in  this  he  was  doubtless  correct.  With 
future  reward  and  punishment,  in  the  proper  and  commonly  received 
sense  in  all  ages,  this  notion  was  entirely  incompatible.  He  observes, 
"  And  that  the  reader  may  not  suspect  these  kind  of  phrases,  that  the 
soul  is  part  of  God,  discerpted  from  him,  of  his  nature,  which  per- 
petually occur  in  the  writings  of  the  ancients,  to  be  only  highly  figurate 
expressions,  and  not  to  be  measured  by  the  severe  standard  of  metaphy- 
sical propriety,  he  is  desired  to  take  notice  of  one  consequence  drawn 
from  this  principle,  and  universally  held  by  antiquity,  which  was  this, 
that  the  soul  was  eternal  a  parte  ante,  as  well  as  a  parte  post,  which  the 
Latins  well  express  by  the  word  sempiternus.  But  when  the  ancients 
are  said  to  hold  the  pre  and  post  existence  of  the  soul,  and  therefore  to 
attribute  a  proper  eternity  to  it,  we  must  not  suppose  that  they  under- 
stood it  to  be  eternal  in  its  distinct  and  peculiar  existence  ;  but  that  it 
was  discerpted  from  the  substance  of  God  in  time,  and  would  in  time  be 
rejoined  and  resolved  into  it  again  ;  which  they  explained  by  a  bottle's 
being  filled  with  sea  water,  that  swimming  there  awhile,  on  the  bottle's 
breaking,  flowed  in  again,  and  mingled  with  the  common  mass.  They 
only  differed  about  the  time  of  this  reunion  and  resolution,  the  greater 
part  holding  it  t^  be  at  death  ;  but  the  Pythagoreans  not  till  after  many 
transmigrations.  The  Platonists  went  between  these  two  opinions,  and 
rejoined  pure  and  unpolluted  souls,  immediately  on  death,  to  the  uni- 
versal Spirit.  But  those  which  had  contracted  much  defilement,  were 
sent  into  a  succession  of  other  bodies,  to  purge  and  purify  them  before 
they  returned  to  their  parent  substance." 

Some  learned  men  have  denied  the  consequence  which  Warburton 
wished  to  establish  from  these  premises,  and  consider  the  resorption  of 
these  sages  as  figurative,  and  consequently  compatible  with  distinct 
consciousness  and  individuality.  The  researches,  however,  since  that 
time  made  into  the  corresponding  philosophy  of  the  Hindoos,  bear  this 
acute  and  learned  man  out  to  the  full  length  of  his  conclusion.  "  God, 
as  separated  from  matter,  the  Hindoos  contemplate  as  a  being  reposing 
in  his  own  happiness,  destitute  of  ideas  ;  as  infinite  placidity  ;  as  an  un- 
ruffled sea  of  bliss  ;  as  being  perfectly  abstracted  and  void  of  conscious- 
ness. They  therefore  deem  it  the  height  of  perfection  to  be  like  this 
being.  The  person  whose  very  nature,  say  they,  is  absorbed  in  Divine  me- 
ditation ;  whose  life  is  like  a  sweet  sleep,  unconscious  and  undisturbed  ; 


52  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

who  does  not  even  desire  God,  and  who  is  changed  into  the  image  of 
the  ever  blessed,  obtains  absorption  into  Brumhu."  (Ward's  View  of  the 
Hindoos,  8vo,  vol.  ii,  p.  177-8.)  And  that  this  doctrine  of  absorption 
is  taken  literally,  is  proved,  not  merely  by  the  terms  in  which  it  is  ex- 
pressed,  though  these  are  sufficiently  unequivocal ;  but  by  its  being 
opposed  by  some  of  the  followers  of  Vishnoo,  and  by  a  few  also  of  their 
philosophers.  Mr.  Ward  quotes  Jumudugnee,  as  an  exception  to  the 
common  opinion  :  he  says,  "  The  idea  of  losing  a  distinct  existence  by 
absorption,  as  a  drop  is  lost  in  the  ocean,  is  abhorrent.  It  is  pleasant  to 
feed  on  sweetmeats,  but  no  one  wishes  to  be  the  sweetmeat  itself."  So 
satisfactorily  is  this  point  made  out  against  the  "  wisdom  of  this  world  ;" 
— by  it  the  world  neither  knew  God  nor  man. 

Another  notion  equally  extensive  and  equally  destructive  of  the  original 
doctrines  of  the  immortality  of  the  human  soul,  and  a  state  of  future  re- 
wards  and  punishments,  which  sprung  up  in  the  Egyptian  schools,  and 
was  from  thence  transmitted  into  Greece,  India,  and  throughout  all  Asia, 
was  that  of  a  periodical  destruction  and  renovation  of  all  things.  "  They 
conceived,"  says  Diodorus  Siculus,  "  that  the  universe  undergoes  a  peri- 
odical conflagration,  after  which  all  things  were  to  be  restored  to  their 
primitive  form,  to  pass  again  through  a  similar  succession  of  changes." 
The  primitive  tenet,  of  which  this  was  a  corruption,  is  also  evident ;  and 
it  affords  another  singular  instance  of  the  subtlety  and  mischief  of  that 
spirit  of  error  which  operated  with  so  much  activity  in  early  times, 
that  the  doctrine  of  the  destruction  of  the  world,  and  the  consequent  ter- 
mination of  the  probationary  state  of  the  human  race  preparatory  to 
the  general  judgment,  an  awful  and  most  salutary  revelation,  should  have 
been  so  wrought  into  philosophic  theory,  and  so  surrounded  with  poetic 
embellishment,  as  to  engage  the  intellect,  and  to  attract  the  imagination, 
only  the  more  effectually  to  destroy  the  great  moral  of  a  doctrine  which 
was  not  denied,  and  covertly  to  induce  an  entire  unbelief  in  the  eternal 
future  existence  of  man. 

As  the  Stoics  held  that  all  inferior  divinities  and  human  souls  were 
portions  separated  from  the  soul  of  the  world,  and  would  return  into  the 
first  celestial  fire,  so  they  supposed,  that  at  the  same  time  the  whole 
visible  world  would  be  consumed  in  one  general  conflagration.  "  Then," 
says  Seneca,  "  after  an  interval  the  world  will  be  entirely  renewed, 
every  animal  will  be  reproduced,  and  a  race  of  men  free  from  guilt  will 
repeople  the  earth.  Degeneracy  and  corruption  are  however  to  creep 
in  again,  and  the  same  process  is  to  go  on  for  ever."  (Ep.  9.)  This 
too  is  the  Brahminical  notion :  "  The  Hindoos  are  taught  to  believe 
that  at  the  end  of  every  Calpa  (creation  or  formation)  all  things  are 
absorbed  in  the  Deity,  and  at  a  stated  time  the  creative  power  will  again 
be  called  into  action."  (Moore's  Hindoo  Pantheon.)  And  though  the 
system  of  the  Budhists  denies  a  Creator,  it  holds  the  same  species  of 


FIRST.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  53 

revolution.  "They  are  of  opinion  that  the  universe  is  eternal,  at 
least  they  neither  know  it  had  a  beginning,  or  will  have  an  end ; 
that  it  is  homogeneous,  and  composed  of  an  infinite  number  of  similar 
worlds,  each  of  which  is  a  likeness  of  the  other,  and  each  of  which  is  in 
a  constant  state  of  alteration, — not  stationary  for  a  moment, — at  the 
instant  of  greatest  perfection  beginning  to  decline,  and  at  the  moment  of 
greatest  chaotic  ruin  beginning  to  regenerate.  They  compare  such 
changes  to  a  wheel  in  motion  perpetually  going  round."  (Dr.  Davey's 
Account  of  Ceylon.) 

But  other  instances  of  darkness  and  error  among  even  civilized  hea- 
thens respecting  the  human  soul,  and  a  future  state  are  not  wanting  ;  for 
it  is  a  fact  which  ought  never  to  be  lost  sight  of  in  these  inquiries,  that 
among  pagans,  opinions  on  these  subjects  have  never  been  either  cer- 
tain or  rational ;  and  that  error  once  received  has  in  no  instance  been 
exchanged  for  truth  ;  but  has  gone  on  multiplying  itself,  and  assuming 
an  infinite  variety  of  forms. 

The  doctrine  of  Aristotle  and  the  Peripatetics  gives  no  countenance  to 
the  opinion  of  the  soul's  immortality,  or  even  of  its  existence  after  death. 
Democritus  and  his  followers  taught,  that  the  soul  is  material  and  mor- 
tal ;  Heraclitus,  that  when  the  soul  is  purified  from  moist  vapours,  it 
returns  into  the  soul  of  the  universe  ;  if  not,  it  perishes  :  Epicurus  and 
his  followers,  that  "when  death  is,  toe  are  not."  The  leading  men 
among  the  Romans,  when  philosophy  was  introduced  among  them,  fol- 
lowed the  various  Greek  sects.  We  have  seen  the  uncertainty  of 
Cicero.  (2)     Pliny  declares,  that  "non  magis  a  morte  sensus  ullus  ant 

(2)  From  the  philosophical  works  of  Cicero  it  may  be  difficult  to  collect  his 
own  opinions,  as  he  chiefly  occupies  himself  in  explaining  those  of  others ;  but 
in  his  epistles  to  his  friends,  when,  as  Warburton  observes,  we  see  the  man 
divested  of  the  politician,  and  the  sophist,  he  professes  his  disbelief  of  a  future 
state  in  the  frankest  manner.  Thus  in  lib.  6,  epis.  3,  to  Torquatus,  written  in 
order  to  consolo  him  in  the  unfortunate  state  of  the  affairs  of  their  party,  he 
observes  :  "  Sed  hsec  consolatio  levis  est ;  ilia  gravior,  qua  te  uti  sprro  ;  ego  certe 
utor.  Nee  enim  dum  ero,  angar  ulla  re,  cum  omni  vacem  culpa;  et  si  non  ero, 
sensu  omnino  carebo.  But  there  is  another  and  a  far  higher  consolation,  which 
I  hope  is  your  support,  as  it  certainly  is  mine.  For  so  long  as  I  shall  preserve 
my  innocence,  I  will  nevor  while  I  exist  be  anxiously  disturbed  at  any  event  that 
may  happen  ;  and  if  I  shall  cease  to  exist,  all  sensibility  must  cease  with  me." 

Similar  expressions  are  found  in  his  letters  to  Toranius,  to  Lucius  Mescinius, 
and  others,  which  those  who  wish  to  prove  him  a  believer  in  the  soul's  immortality 
endoavour  to  account  for  by  supposing  that  he  accommodated  his  sentiments  to 
the  principles  of  his  friends.  A  singular  solution,  and  one  which  scarcely  can 
be  seriously  adopted,  since  in  the  above  cited  passage  he  so  strongly  expresses 
what  is  his  own  opinion,  and  hopes  that  his  friend  takes  refugo  in  the  samo 
consolation.  It  may  be  allowed  that  Cicero  alternated  between  unbelief  and 
doubt ;  but  never  I  think  between  doubt  and  certainty.  The  last  was  a  ooin» 
to  which  he  never  seems  to  have  reachpd 


54  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

animai  aut  corpori  quam  ante  natalem,  the  soul  and  body  have  no  more 
sense  after  death,  than  before  we  were  born."  (Nat.  Hist.  lib.  7,  cap. 
55.)  Caesar,  "that  beyond  death  there  is  neque  curat  neque  gaudio 
locum,  neither  place  for  care  or  joy."  (Sallust.  De  Bello  Catil.  sec.  5.) 
Seneca  in  his  102d  epistle  speaks  of  a  Divine  part  within  us,  which  joins 
us  to  the  gods  ;  and  tells  Lucilius,  "  that  the  day  which  he  fears  as  his 
last  aterni  natalis  est,  is  the  birth-day  of  eternity ;"  but  then  he  says, 
"he  was  willing  to  hope  it  might  be  so,  on  the  account  of  some  great  men, 
rem  gratissimam  promittentium  magis  quam  probantium,  who  promised 
what  they  could  not  prove ;"  and  on  other  occasions  he  speaks  out 
plainly,  and  says  that  death  makes  us  incapabable  of  good  or  evil.  The 
poets,  it  is  true,  spoke  of  a  future  state  of  rewards  and  punishments ; 
they  had  the  joys  of  Elysium  and  the  tortures  of  Tartarus ;  but  both 
philosophers  and  poets  regarded  them  as  vulgar  fables.  Virgil  does  not 
hide  this,  and  numerous  quotations  of  the  same  import  might  be  given 
both  from  him  and  others  of  their  poets. 

"  Felix  qui  potuit  rerum  cognoscere  causas ; 
Atque  metus  omnea  et  inexorabile  fatum 
Subjecit  pedibus,  strepitumque  Acherontis  avari!" — Georg.  2,  1.  490,  &c- 

Happy  the  man,  whose  vigorous  soul  can  pierce 

Through  the  formation  of  this  universe, 

Who  nobly  dares  despise,  with  soul  sedate, 

The  din  of  Acheron,  and  vulgar  fears  and  fate. — Warton. 

Nor  was  the  skepticism  and  unbelief  of  the  wise  and  great  long  kept 
from  the  vulgar,  among  whom  they  wished  to  maintain  the  old  super- 
stitions as  instruments  by  which  they  might  be  controlled.  Cicero  com- 
plains,  that  the  common  people  in  his  day  mostly  followed  the  doctrine 
of  Epicurus. 

Since  then  these  erroneous  and  mischievous  views  concerning  God, 
providence,  and  a  future  state,  or  the  total  denial  of  all  of  them,  are 
found  to  have  resulted  from  the  rejection  or  loss  of  the  primitive  tradi- 
tions ;  and  farther  as  it  is  clear  that  such  errors  are  totally  subversive  of 
the  fundamental  principles  of  morals  and  religion,  and  afford  inducement 
to  the  commission  of  every  species  of  crime  without  remorse,  or  fear  of 
punishment ;  the  necessity  of  a  republication  of  these  great  doctrines  in 
an  explicit  and  authentic  manner,  and  of  institutions  for  teaching  and 
enforcing  them  upon  all  ranks  of  men,  is  evident ;  and  whatever  proof 
may  be  adduced  for  the  authentication  of  the  Christian  revelation,  it  can 
never  be  pretended,  that  a  revelation  to  restore  these  great  principles  was 
not  called  for  by  the  actual  condition  of  man  ;  and,  in  proportion  to  the 
necessity  of  the  case,  is  the  strength  of  the  presumption  that  one  has 
been  mercifully  afforded. 


FIRST.J  THEOLOGICAL   INSTITUTES.  K> 

CHAPTER  VII. 

The  Necessity  of  Revelation : — State  of  Morals  among  the  Heathen. 

If  the  necessity  of  a  revelation  may  be  argued  from  the  confused, 
contradictory,  and  false  notions  of  heathen  nations  as  to  the  principal 
doctrines  of  religion ;  no  less  forcibly  may  the  argument  be  pursued 
from  the  state  of  their  morals  both  in  knowledge  and  in  practice. 

This  argument  is  simple  and  obvious.  If  the  nature,  extent,  and 
obligation  of  moral  rules  had  become  involved  in  great  misapprehen- 
sion and  obscurity  ;  if  what  they  knew  of  right  and  wrong  wanted  an 
enforcement  and  an  authority  which  it  could  not  receive  from  their 
respective  systems ;  and  if,  for  want  of  efficient,  counteracting  reli- 
gious principles,  the  general  practice  had  become  irretrievably  vicious ; 
a  direct  interposition  of  the  Divine  Being  was  required  for  the  repub- 
lication of  moral  rules  and  for  their  stronger  enforcement. 

The  notions  of  all  civilized  heathens  on  moral  subjects,  like  their 
knowledge  of  the  first  principles  of  religion,  mingled  as  they  were  with 
their  superstitions,  prove  that  both  were  derived  from  a  common  source. 
There  was  a  substantial  agreement  among  them  in  many  questions  of 
right  and  wrong  ;  but  the  boundaries  which  they  themselves  acknow- 
ledged were  not  kept  up,  and  the  rule  was  gradually  lowered  to  the 
practice,  though  not  in  all  cases  so  as  entirely  to  efface  the  original 
communication. 

This  is  an  important  consideration,  inasmuch  as  it  indicates  the 
transmission  of  both  religion  and  morals  from  the  patriarchal  system, 
and  that  both  the  primitive  doctrines  and  their  corresponding  morals 
received  early  sanctions,  the  force  of  which  was  felt  through  succeed- 
ing ages.  It  shows  too,  that  even  the  heathen  have  always  been 
under  a  moral  government.  The  laws  of  God  have  never  been  quite 
obliterated,  though  their  practice  has  ever  been  below  their  knowledge, 
and  though  the  law  itself  was  greatly  and  wilfully  corrupted  through 
the  influence  of  their  vicious  inclinations. 

This  subject  may  perhaps  be  best  illustrated  by  adverting  to  some 
of  the  precepts  of  the  Second  Table,  which  embodied  the  morals  of 
the  patriarchal  ages,  under  a  new  sanction.  Of  the  obligation  of  these, 
all  heathen  nations  have  been  sensible ;  and  yet,  in  all,  the  rule  was 
perverted  in  theory  and  violated  in  practice. 

Mceder  has,  in  all  ages  and  among  all  civilized  and  most  savage 
heathen  nations  also,  been  regarded  as  an  atrocious  crime ;  and  yet 
the  rule  was  so  far  accommodated  to  the  violent  and  ferocious  habits 
of  men,  as  to  fill  every  heathen  land  with  blood  guiltiness.  The  slight 
regard  paid  to  the  life  of  man,  in  all  heathen  countries,  cannot  have 


56  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

escaped  the  notice  of  reflecting  minds.  They  knew  the  rule ;  but  the 
act,  under  its  grosser  and  more  deliberate  forms  only,  was  thought  to 
violate  it.  Among  the  Romans,  men  were  murdered  in  their  very  pas- 
times, by  being  made  to  fight  with  wild  beasts  and  with  each  other , 
and  though  this  was  sometimes  condemned,  as  a  "  spectaculum  crudele 
et  inhumanum,"  yet  the  passion  for  blood  increased,  and  no  war  ever 
caused  so  great  a  slaughter  as  did  the  gladiatorial  combats.  They 
were  at  first  confined  to  the  funerals  of  great  persons.  The  first  show 
of  this  kind  exhibited  in  Rome  by  the  Bruti,  on  the  death  of  their  fa- 
ther, consisted  of  three  couples,  but  afterward  the  number  greatly  in- 
creased. Julius  Caesar  presented  300  pairs  of  gladiators  ;  and  the  Em- 
peror Trajan,  10,000  of  them,  for  the  entertainment  of  the  people. — 
Sometimes  these  horrid  exhibitions,  in  which,  as  Seneca  says,  "  Homo, 
sacra  res,  homo  jam  per  lusum  et  jocum  occiditur,"  when  the  practice 
had  attained  its  height, deprived  Europe  of  20,000  lives  in  one  month.(3) 

This  is  farther  illustrated  by  the  treatment  of  slaves,  which  composed 
so  large  a  portion  of  the  population  of  ancient  states.  (4)  They  knew 
and  acknowledged  the  evil  of  murder,  and  had  laws  for  its  punishment ; 
but  to  this  despised  class  of  human  beings  they  did  not  extend  the  rule  ; 
nor  was  killing  them  accounted  murder,  anymore  than  the  killing  of  a 
beast.  The  master  had  absolute  power  of  life,  or  death,  or  torture ; 
and  their  lives  were  therefore  sacrificed  in  the  most  wanton  manner.  (5) 

By  various  sophistries,  suggested  by  their  vices,  their  selfishness,  and 
their  cruelty,  the  destruction  of  children  also,  under  certain  circum- 
stances, ceased  to  be  regarded  as  a  crime.  In  many  heathen  nations  it 
was  allowed  to  destroy  the  foetus  in  the  womb  ;  to  strangle,  or  drown, 

(3)  Though  Cicero,  Seneca,  and  others,  condemned  these  barbarities,  it  was  in 
so  incidental  and  indifferent  a  manner  as  to  produce  no  effect.  They  were  abo. 
lished  soon  after  the  establishment  of  Christianity,  and  this  affords  an  illustration 
of  the  admission  of  Rousseau  himself.  "  La  philosophie  ne  peut  faire  aucun  bien, 
que  la  Religion  ne  le  fasse  encore  mieux  :  et  la  Religion  en  fait  beaucoup  que  la 
philosophie  ne  sauroit  faire." 

(4)  In  the  110th  Olympiad,  there  were  at  Athens  only  21,000  citizens  and 
40,000  slaves.  It  was  common  for  a  private  citizen  of  Rome  to  have  10  or  20,000. 
(Taylor's  Civil  Law.) 

(5)  The  youth  of  Sparta  made  it  their  pastime  frequently  to  lie  in  ambush  by 
night  for  the  slaves,  and  sally  out  with  daggers  upon  every  Helot  who  came  near 
them,  and  murder  him  in  cold  blood.  The  Ephori,  as  soon  as  they  entered  upon 
their  office,  declared  war  against  them  in  form,  that  there  might  be  an  appear- 
ance of  destroying  them  legally.  It  was  the  custom  for  Vcdius  Pollio,  when  his 
ulaves  had  committed  a  fault,  sometimes  a  very  trifling  one,  to  order  them  to  be 
thrown  into  his  fish-ponds,  to  feed  his  lampreys.  It  was  the  constant  custom,  as 
we  learn  from  Tacitus,  Annal.  xiv,  43,  when  a  master  was  murdered  in  his  own 
house,  to  put  all  the  slaves  to  death  indiscriminately.  For  a  just  and  affecting 
account  of  the  condition  of  slaves  in  ancient  states,  see  Porteus's  Beneficial  Ef. 
fects  of  Christianity. 


FIRST.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  57 

or  expose  infants,  especially  if  sickly  or  deformed ;  and  that  which, 
in  Christian  states,  is  considered  as  the  most  atrocious  of  crimes,  was, 
by  the  most  celebrated  of  ancient  pagan  nations,  esteemed  a  wise  and 
political  expedient  to  rid  the  state  of  useless  or  troublesome  members, 
and  was  even  enjoined  by  some  of  their  most  celebrated  sages  and  le- 
gislators. The  same  practice  continues  to  this  day  in  a  most  affect- 
ing  extent,  not  only  among  uncivilized  pagans,  but  among  the  Hin- 
doos and  the  Chinese. 

This  practice  of  perverting  and  narrowing  the  extent  of  the  holy 
law  of  God,  which  had  been  transmitted  to  them,  was  exemplified  also 
in  the  allowing,  or  rather  commending  the  practice  of  suicide. 

JJoubtless,  the  primitive  law  against  murder  condemned  also  hatred 
and  revenge.  Our  Lord  restored  it  to  its  true  meaning  among  the 
Jews  ;  and  that  it  was  so  understood  even  among  the  ancient  heathens, 
is  clear  from  a  placable  and  forgiving  spirit  being  sometimes  praised, 
and  the  contrary  censured  by  their  sages,  moralists,  and  poets.  Yet 
not  only  was  the  rule  violated  almost  universally  in  practice  ;  but  it  was 
also  disputed  and  denied  in  many  of  its  applications  by  the  authority  of 
their  wise  and  learned  men  ;  so  that,  as  far  as  the  authority  of  moral 
teachers  went,  a  full  scope  was  given  for  the  indulgence  of  hatred, 
malice,  and  insatiate  revenge.  One  of  the  qualities  of  the  good  man 
described  by  Cicero  is,  that  he  hurts  no  one,  except  he  be  injured 
himself.  "  Qui  nemini  nocet,  nisi  lacessitus  injuria  ;"  and  he  declares 
as  to  himself,  "  sic  ulciscar  facinora  singula  quemadmodum  a  quibusque 
sum  provocatus :  I  will  revenge  all  injuries,  according  as  I  am  provoked 
by  any ;"  and  Aristotle  speaks  of  meekness  as  a  defect,  because  the 
meek  man  will  not  avenge  himself,  and  of  revenge,  as  "  avfywrnxoTSpov 
paXkov,  a  more  manly  thing."  (Moral.  I.  4,  c.  11.) 

*  Thou  shalt  not  commit  adultery,"  was  another  great  branch  of 
the  patriarchal  law,  existing  before  the  Decalogue,  as  appears  from 
the  sacred  history.  It  forbids  uncleanness  of  every  kind,  in  thought 
aud  deed,  and  specially  guards  the  sanctity  of  marriage  :  nor  is  there 
any  precept  more  essential  to  public  morals,  and  to  the  whole  train 
of  personal,  social,  domestic,  and  national  virtues. 

It  is  not  necessary  to  bring  detailed  proof  of  the  almost  universal 
gross,  and  habitual  violation  of  this  sacred  law  in  all  pagan  nations, 
both  ancient  and  modern,  from  its  first  stages  down  to  crimes  zcfapa 
<putfiv.  This  is  sufficiently  notorious  to  all  acquainted  with  the  history 
of  the  ancient  and  modern  pagan  world ;  and  will  not  be  denied  by 
any.  It  is  only  requisite  to  show  that  they  had  the  law,  and  that  it  was 
weakened  and  corrupted,  so  as  to  render  a  republication  necessary. 

The  public  laws  against  adultery  in  almost  all  heathen  states,  and  the 
censures  of  moralists  and  satirists,  are  sufficiently  in  proof  that  such  a 
law  was  known  ;  and  the  higher  the  antiquity  of  the  times,  the  more 


58  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

respect  we  see  paid  to  chastity,  and  the  better  was  the  practice.  Nor 
was  the  act  only  considered  by  some  of  their  moralists  as  sinful ;  but 
the  thought  and  desire,  as  may  be  observed  in  passages  both  in  Greek 
and  Roman  writers.  But  as  to  this  vice,  too,  as  well  as  others,  the  prac- 
tice lowered  the  rule ;  and  the  authority  of  one  lawgiver  and  moralist 
being  neutralized  by  another,  license  was  given  to  unbounded  offence. 

Divorce,  formerly  permitted  only  in  cases  of  adultery,  became  at 
length  a  mere  matter  of  caprice,  and  that  both  with  Jews  and  Gen- 
tiles :  and  among  the  latter,  adultery  was  chiefly  interpreted  as  the  vio- 
lation of  the  marriage  covenant  by  the  wife  only,  or  by  the  man  with 
a  married  woman,  thus  leaving  the  husband  a  large  license  of  vicious 
indulgence.  To  whoredom  and  similar  vices,  lawgivers,  statesmen, 
philosophers,  and  moralists  gave  the  sanction  of  their  opinions  and 
their  practice ;  which  foul  blot  of  ancient  heathenism  continues  to 
this  day,  to  mark  the  morals  of  pagan  countries.  (6) 

In  most  civilized  states  the  very  existence  of  society,  and  the  natu- 
ral selfishness  of  man,  led  to  the  preservation  of  the  ancient  laws 
against  theft  and  rapine,  and  to  the  due  execution  of  the  statutes 
made  against  them ;  but  in  this  also  we  see  the  same  disposition  to 
corrupt  the  original  prohibition.  It  was  not  extended  to  strangers  or 
to  foreign  countries ;  nor  was  it  generally  interpreted  to  reach  to  any 
thing  more  than  flagrant  acts  of  violence.  Usury,  extortion,  and  fraud 
were  rather  regarded  as  laudatory  acts,  than  as  injurious  to  character  ; 
and  so  they  continue  to  be  esteemed  wherever  Christianity  has  not  is- 
sued her  authoritative  laws  against  injustice  in  all  its  degrees.  Through- 
out India,  there  is  said  to  be  scarcely  such  a  thing  as  common  honesty. 

Another  great  branch  of  morality  is  truth  ;  but  on  the  obvious 
obligation  to  speak  it,  we  find  the  same  laxity  both  of  opinion  and 
practice  ;  and  in  this,  heathenism  presents  a  striking  contrast  to  Chris 
tianity,  which  commands  us  "  to  speak  the  truth  one  to  another,"  and 
denounces  damnation  against  him  that  "  loves  or  makes  a  lie" 

(6)  Terence  says  of  simple  fornication,  H  Non  est  scelus,  adolescentulum  scor- 
tari  flagitium  est."  The  Spartans,  through  a  principle  in  the  institutions  of 
Lycurgus,  which  controlled  their  ancient  opinions  on  this  subject,  in  certain  pre- 
scribed cases,  allowed  adultery  in  thowife  ;  and  Plutarch,  in  his  Life  of  Lycurgup, 
mentioning  these  laws,  commends  them  as  being  made  "■  <pvotico>s  icat  7r9Xi?<*<o?,ac- 
cording  to  nature  ana  polity."  Callicratides,  the  Pythagorean,  tells  the  wife  that 
she  must  bear  with  her  husband's  irregularities,  since  the  law  allows  this  to  the 
man  and  not  to  the  woman.  Plutarch  speaks  to  the  same  purpose  in  several 
places  of  his  writings.  On  the  other  hand,  some  of  the  philosophers  condemned 
adultery  ;  and  in  many  places,  it  was  punished  in  the  woman  with  death,  in  the 
man  with  infamy.  Still,  however,  the  same  vacillation  of  judgment,  and  the  same 
limitations,  of  what  they  sometimes  confess  to  be  the  ancient  rule  and  custom, 
may  be  observed  throughout ;  but  as  far  as  the  authority  of  philosophers  went,  it 
was  chiefly  on  the  side  of  vicious  practice. 


FIRST.J  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  59 

They  knew  that  "tollendum  est  ex  rebus  contraliendis  omne  mendacium, 
(Cic.  de  Of.  1.  iii,  n.  81,)  no  lie  was  to  be  used  in  contracts  ;"  and  that 
an  honest  man  should  do  and  speak  nothing  in  falsehood  and  with 
hypocrisy ;  but  they  more  frequently  departed  from  this  rule  than  en- 
joined it.  The  rule  of  Menander  was,  "  a  lie  is  better  than  a  hurtful 
truth."  Plato  says,  "he  may  lie  who  knows  how  to  do  it  in  aft  sea- 
son ;"  and  Maximus  Tyrius,  "  that  there  is  nothing  decorous  in  truth, 
but  when  it  is  profitable  ;"  and  both  Plato  and  the  Stoics  frame  a  Jesu- 
itical distinction  between  lying  with  the  lips  and  in  the  mind.  Deceit 
and  falsehood  have  been  therefore  the  character  of  all  pagan  nations, 
and  continue  so  to  be  to  this  day.  This  is  the  character  of  the  Chinese, 
as  given  by  the  best  authorities  ;  and  of  the  Hindoos  it  is  stated  by  the 
most  respectable  Europeans,  not  merely  missionaries,  but  by  those  who 
have  long  held  official,  civil,  and  judicial  situations  among  them,  that 
their  disregard  of  truth  is  uniform  and  systematic.  When  discovered, 
it  causes  no  surprise  in  the  one  party,  or  humiliation  in  the  other. 
Even  when  they  have  truth  to  tell,  they  seldom  fail  to  bolster  it  up 
with  some  appended  falsehoods.  (7) 

Nor  can  the  force  of  the  argument  in  favour  of  the  necessity  of  a 
direct  revelation  of  the  will  of  God  by  these  facts  be  weakened  by  alleg- 
ing, what  is  unhappily  too  true,  that  where  the  Christian  revelation  has 
been  known,  great  violations  of  all  these  rules  have  been  commonly  ob- 
served ;  for,  not  to  urge  the  moral  superiority  of  the  worst  of  Christian 
states,  in  all  of  them  the  authority  and  sanction  of  religion  is  directed 
against  vice ;  while  among  heathens,  their  religion  itself,  having  been 
corrupted  by  the  wickedness  of  man,  has  become  the  great  instrument 
of  encouraging  every  species  of  wickedness.  This  circumstance  so 
fully  demonstrates  the  necessity  of  an  interposition  on  the  part  of  God 
to  restore  truth  to  the  world,  that  it  deserves  a  particular  consideration 


CHAPTER  VIII. 

The  Necessity  of  Revelation : — Religions  of  the  Heathen. 

That  the  religions  which  have  prevailed  among  pagan  nations  have 
been  destructive  of  morality,  cannot  be  denied. 

(7)  "  It  is  the  business  of  all,"  says  Sir  John  Shore,  "  from  the  Ryot  to  the 
Dewan,  to  conceal  and  deceive.  The  simplest  matters  of  fact  are  designedly 
covered  with  a  veil,  which  no  human  understanding  can  penetrate."  The  preva 
lence  of  perjury  is  so  universal,  as  to  involve  the  judges  in  extreme  perplexity. 
"The  honest  men,"  says  Mr.  Strachey,  "as  well  as  the  rogues,  are  perjured. 
Even  where  tho  real  facts  are  sufficient  to  convict  the  oiFender,  the  witnesses 
against  him  must  add  others,  often  notoriously  false,  or  utterly  incredible,  such 
as  in  Europe  would  wholly  invalidate  their  testimony." 


60  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

How  far  the  speculative  principles  which  they  embodied  had  this  effect, 
has  already  been  shown  ;  we  proceed  to  their  more  direct  influence. 

The  gloomy  superstition,  which  pervaded  most  of  them,  fostered 
ferocious  and  cruel  dispositions. 

The  horrible  practice  of  offering  human  sacrifices  prevailed  throughout 
every  region  of  the  heathen  world,  to  a  degree  which  is  almost  incredi- 
ble ;  and  it  still  prevails  in  many  populous  countries  where  Christianity 
has  not  yet  been  made  known.  There  are  incontestable  proofs  of  its 
having  subsisted  among  the  Egyptians,  the  Syrians,  the  Persians,  the 
Phenicians,  and  all  the  various  nations  of  the  east.  It  was  one  of  the 
crying  sins  of  the  Canaanites.  The  contagion  spread  over  every  part 
of  Asia,  Africa,  and  Europe.  The  Greeks  and  Romans,  though  less 
involved  in  this  guilt  than  many  other  nations,  were  not  altogether  un- 
tainted with  it.  On  great  and  extraordinary  occasions,  they  had  recourse 
to  what  was  esteemed  the  most  efficacious  and  most  meritorious  sacrifice 
that  could  be  offered  to  the  gods,  the  effusion  of  human  blood.  (8)  But 
among  more  barbarous  nations,  this  practice  took  a  firmer  root.  The 
Scythians  and  Thracians,  the  Gauls  and  the  Germans,  were  strongly 
addicted  to  it ;  and  our  own  island,  under  the  gloomy  and  ferocious 
despotism  of  the  Druids,  was  polluted  with  the  religious  murder  of  its 
inhabitants.  In  the  semi-civilized  kingdoms  on  the  western  side  of 
Africa,  as  Dahomy,  Ashantee,  and  others,  many  thousands  fall  every 
year  victims  to  superstition.  In  America,  Montezuma  offered  20,000 
victims  yearly  to  the  sun ;  and  modern  navigators  have  found  the  practice 
throughout  the  whole  extent  of  the  vast  Pacific  ocean.  As  for  India, 
the  cries  of  its  abominable  and  cruel  superstitions  have  been  sounded 
repeatedly  in  the  ears  of  the  British  public  and  its  legislature ;  and, 
including  infants  and  widows,  not  fewer  than  10,000  lives  fall  a  sacri- 
fice to  idolatry  in  our  eastern  dominions  yearly !  (9) 

The  influence  of  these  practices  in  obdurating  the  heart,  and  disposing 
it  to  habitual  cruelty,  need  not  be  pointed  out ;  but  the  religions  of 
paganism  have  been  as  productive  of  impurity  as  of  blood. 

The  Floralia  among  the  Romans  were  celebrated  for  four  days 
together  by  the  most  shameless  actions ;  and  their  mysteries  in  every 
country,  whatever  might  be  their  original  intent,  became  horribly  corrupt. 
It  was  in  the  temples  of  many  of  their  deities,  and  on  their  religious 
festivals,  that  every  kind  of  impurity  was  most  practised ;  and  this  con- 


(8)  Plutarch  in  the  Lives  of  Themistocles,  Marcollus,  and  Aristides.  (Livy  1. 
22,  c.  57 ;  Florus  1.  1,  c.  13 ;  Virg.  Mn.  x,  518,  xi,  81.) 

(9)  See  Maurice's  Indian  Antiquities  ;  the  writings  of  Dr.  Claudius  Buchanan  ; 
Ward  on  the  Hindoos ;  Dubois  on  Hindoo  Manners,  &c ;  Robertson's  History  of 
America ;  Bowditch's  Account  of  Ashantee ;  Moore's  Hindoo  Pantheon ;  and 
Porteus  and  Ryan  on  the  Effects  of  Christianity. 


FIRST.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  61 

tinues  to  the  present  day  throughout  all  the  regions  of  modern 
paganism.  (1) 

This  immoral  tendency  of  their  religion  was  confirmed  and  perfected 
by  the  very  character  and  actions  of  their  gods,  whose  names  were 
perpetually  in  their  mouths  ;  and  whose  murderous  or  obscene  exploits, 
whose  villanies  and  chicaneries,  whose  hatreds  and  strifes,  were  the 
subject  of  their  popular  legends  ;  which  made  up  in  fact  the  only  theo . 
logy,  if  so  it  may  be  called,  of  the  body  of  the  people.  That  they  should 
be  better  than  their  gods,  was  not  to  be  expected,  and  worse  they  could 
not  be.  Deities  with  such  attributes  could  not  but  corrupt,  and  be  ap- 
pealed  to,  not  merely  to  excuse,  but  to  sanctify  the  worst  practices.  (2) 

Let  this  argument  then  be  summed  up. 

All  the  leading  doctrines  on  which  religion  rests,  had  either  been 
corrupted  by  a  grovelling  and  immoral  superstition,  among  heathen 
nations  ;  or  the  philosophic  speculations  of  their  wisest  men  had  intro- 
duced principles  destructive  of  man's  accountability  and  present  and 
future  hope.  On  morals  themselves,  the  original  rules  were  generally 
perverted,  limited,  or  rejected  ;  while  the  religious  rites,  and  the  legend- 
ary character  of  the  deities  worshipped,  to  the  exclusion  of  the  true  God, 
gave  direct  incitement  and  encouragement  to  vice.  Thus  the  grossest 
ignorance  on  Divine  subjects  universally  prevailed ;  the  learned  were 
involved  in  inextricable  perplexities ;  and  the  unlearned  received  as 
truth  the  most  absurd  and  monstrous  fables,  all  of  them,  however, 
favourable  to  vicious  indulgence.  The  actual  state  of  morals  also  ac- 
corded with  the  corrupt  religious  systems,  and  the  lax  moral  principles 
which  they  adopted ;  so  that  in  every  heathen  state  of  ancient  times, 
the  description  of  the  Apostle  Paul  in  the  first  chapter  of  Romans  is 
supported  by  the  evidence  of  their  own  historians  and  poets.  The 
same  may  also  be  affirmed  of  modern  pagan  countries,  whose  moral 
condition  may  explain  more  fully,  as  they  are  now  so  well  known 
through  our  intercourse  with  them,  the  genius  and  moral  tendency  of 
the  ancient  idolatries,  with  which  those  of  India,  and  other  parts  of  the 
east  especially,  so  exactly  agree. 

These  are  the  facts.  They  affect  not  a  small  portion  of  mankind, 
but  all  who  have  not  had  the  oenefits  of  the  doctrines  and  morals  of  the 
Holy  Scriptures.  There  are  no  exceptions  from  this  of  any  consequence 

(1)  See  Leland  and  Whitby,  on  the  Necessity  of  a  Revelation  ;  and  the  writers 
on  the  customs  of  India, — Ward,  Dubois,  Buchanan,  and  Moore,  before  re 
ferred  to. 

(2)  Hence  Chserea,  in  Terence,  pertinently  enough  asks,  Quod  fecit  is  qui  tern, 
pla  caeli  summa  sonitu  concutit,  ego  homuncio  non  facer em?  Eunuch.  Act.  3, 
sec.  5.  He  only  imitated  Jupiter.  And  says  Sextus  Empyricus,  "  That  cannot 
be  unjust  which  is  done  by  the  god  Mercury,  the  prince  of  thieves ,  for  how  can 
a  god  be  wicked  ?"  (Apud.  Euseb.  Prcep.  lib.  6,  cap.  10.) 


62  THEOLOGICAL   INSTITUTES.  [PART 

to  the  argument,  though  some  difference  in  the  morals  of  heathen  states 
may  be  allowed.  Where  the  Scriptures  are  unknown,  there  is  not,  nor 
ever  has  been  since  the  corruption  of  the  primitive  religion,  a  religious 
system  which  has  contained  just  views  of  God  and  religious  truth,  the 
Theists  of  the  present  day  being  judges  ; — none  which  has  enjoined  a 
correct  morality,  or  even  opposed  any  effectual  barrier  against  the  de- 
terioration of  public  manners.  These  facts  cannot  be  denied  :  for  the 
allegations  formerly  made  of  the  morality  of  modern  pagan  nations 
have  been  sufficiently  refuted  by  a  better  acquaintance  with  them ; 
and  the  conclusion  is  irresistible,  that  an  express  revelation  of  the  will 
of  God,  accompanied  with  efficient  corrective  institutions,  was  become 
necessary,  and  is  still  demanded  by  the  ignorance  and  vices,  the  mise- 
ries and  disorders  of  every  part  of  the  earth  into  which  Christianity 
has  not  been  introduced. 

But  we  may  go  another  step.  This  exhibition  of  the  moral  condition 
of  those  nations  who  have  not  had  the  benefit  of  the  renewal  and  repub- 
lication of  the  truths  of  the  patriarchal  religion,  not  only  supports  the 
conclusion  that  new  and  direct  revelations  from  God  were  necessary  ; 
but  the  wants,  which  that  condition  so  obviously  created,  will  support 
other  presumptions  as  to  the  nature  and  mode  of  that  revelation,  in  the 
case  of  such  a  gift  being  bestowed  in  the  exercise  of  the  Divine  mercy, 
for  if  there  is  ground  to  presume  that  almighty  God,  in  his  compas- 
sion for  his  creatures,  would  not  leave  them  to  the  unchecked  influence 
of  error  and  vice  ;  nor,  upon  the  corruption  of  that  simple,  but  compre- 
hensive doctrine,  worship  and  morals,  communicated  to  the  progenitors 
of  all  those  great  branches  of  the  family  of  man  Avhich  have  been 
spread  over  the  earth,  refuse  to  interpose  to  renew  and  to  perfect  that 
religious  system  which  existed  in  an  elementary  form  in  the  earliest 
ages,  and  give  to  it  a  form  less  liable  to  alteration  and  decay  than 
when  left  to  be  transmitted  by  tradition  alone ;  there  is  equal  ground 
to  presume,  that  the  revelation,  whenever  vouchsafed,  should  be  of  that 
nature,  and  accompanied  by  such  circumstances,  as  would  most  effec- 
tually accomplish  this  benevolent  purpose. 

Presumptions  as  to  the  manner  in  which  such  a  revelation  would  be 
made  most  effectually  to  accomplish  its  ends,  are  indeed  to  be  guarded, 
lest  we  should  set  up  ourselves  as  adequate  judges  in  a  case  which 
involves  large  views  and  extensive  bearings  of  the  Divine  government. 
But  without  violating  this  rule,  it  may,  from  the  obviousness  of  the  case, 
be  presumed,  that  such  a  supernatural  manifestation  of  truth  should, 
1,  contain  explicit  information  on  those  important  subjects  on  which 
mankind  had  most  greatly  and  most  fatally  erred.  2.  That  it  should 
accord  with  the  principles  of  former  revelations,  given  to  men  in  the 
same  state  of  guilt  and  moral  incapacity  as  we  find  them  in  the  present 
dav.     3.  That  it  should  have  a  satisfactory  external  authentication. 


FIRST.  1  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  63 

4.  That  it  should  contain  provisions  for  its  effectual  promulgation 
among  all  classes  of  men.  All  this,  allowing  the  necessity  and  the  pro 
bability  of  a  supernatural  communication  of  the  will  of  God,  must  cer- 
tainly be  expected  ;  and  if  the  Christian  revelation  bears  this  character, 
it  has  certainly  these  presumptions  in  its  favour,  that  it  meets  an  ob- 
vious case  of  necessity,  and  confers  the  advantages  just  enumerated. 

1.  It  gives  information  on  those  subjects  which  are  most  important 
to  man,  and  which  the  world  had  darkened  with  the  greatest  errors — 
the  nature  and  -perfections,  claims  and  relations  of  God — his  will  (3) 
as  the  rule  of  moral  good  and  evil — the  means  of  obtaining  pardon  and 
of  conquering  vice — the  true  Mediator  between  God  and  man — Divine 
Providence — the  chief  good  of  man,  respecting  which  alone  more  than 
three  hundred  different  opinions  among  the  ancient  sages  have  been  reck- 
oned up — man's  immortality  and  accountability,  and  a  future  state. 

2.  It  is  also  required  that  a  revelation  should  accord  with  the  prin- 
ciples of  former  revelations,  should  any  have  been  given. 

For  since  it  is  a  first  principle  that  God  cannot  err  himself,  nor  de- 
ceive us,  so  far  as  one  revelation  renews  or  explains  any  truth  in  a 
preceding  one,  it  must  agree  with  the  previous  communication ;  and 
in  what  it  adds  to  a  preceding  revelation,  it  cannot  contradict  any 
thing  which  it  contains,  if  it  be  exhibited  as  a  truth  of  unchangeable 
character  or  a  duty  of  perpetual  obligation. 

Now  whatever  direct  proof  may  be  adduced  in  favour  of  the  Divine 
authority  of  the  Jewish  and  Christian  revelations,  this  at  least  may  bo 
confidently  urged  as  evidence  in  their  favour,  that  they  have  a  substan- 
tial agreement  and  harmony  among  themselves,  and  with  that  ancient 
traditional  system  which  existed  in  the  earliest  ages,  and  the  fragments 
of  which  we  find  scattered  among  all  nations.  As  to  the  patriarchal 
system  of  religion,  to  which  reference  has  been  so  often  made,  beside 
the  notices  of  it  which  are  every  where  scattered  in  the  book  of  Gene- 
sis, we  have  ample  and  most  satisfactory  information  in  the  ancient 
book  of  Job,  of  Avhich  sufficient  evidence  may  be  given  that  it  was 
written  not  later  than  the  time  of  Moses;  and  that  Job  himself  lived 
between  the  flood  of  Noah  and  the  call  of  Abraham.  Of  the  religion 
of  the  patriarchs,  as  it  existed  just  at  that  period  when  Sabianism,  or 
the  worship  of  the  heavenly  luminaries,  began  to  make  its  appearance, 
and  was  restrained  by  the  authority  of  the  "judges,"  who  were  the 
heads  of  tribes  or  families,  and  as  it  existed  in  the  preceding  ages,  as 
we  find  from  the  reference  made  by  Job  and  his  friends  to  the  authority 
of  their  "fathers,"  this  book  contains  an  ample  and  most  satisfactory 
record  ;  and  from  this  venerable  relic  a  very  copious  body  of  doctrinal 
and  practical  theology  might  be  collected  ;  but  the  following  particulars 
will  be  sufficient  for  the  present  argument : — 

(3)  See  note  A  at  the  end  of  the  chapter. 


64  THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES  [PART 

One  Supreme  Being  alone  is  recognized  throughout,  as  the  object  of 
adoration,  worship,  hope,  trust,  and  fear ;  who  is  represented  as  of 
infinite  and  unsearchable  majesty, — eternal,  omnipresent,  omniscient, 
almighty,  and  of  perfect  wisdom,  justice,  goodness ;  governing  all  things, 
noting  and  judging  individuals,  regarding  the  good,  punishing  the  wicked, 
placable,  listening  to  the  prayers  of  the  penitent.  The  natural  corruption 
of  man's  nature  is  also  stated  ;  and  his  own  inability  to  cleanse  his  heart 
from  sin.  Man,  we  are  told,  cannot  be  just  with  God,  and  therefore 
needs  an  intercessor.  Sacrifices,  as  of  Divine  appointment,  and  propi- 
tiatory in  their  nature,  are  also  adverted  to  as  commonly  practised. 
Express  reference  is  made  to  a  Divine  Redeemer  and  his  future  incar- 
nation, as  an  object  of  hope.  The  doctrines  of  an  immortal  spirit  in 
man,  and  of  the  resurrection  of  the  body,  and  a  future  judgment,  have 
all  a  place  in  this  system.  Creation  is  ascribed  to  God  ;  and  not  only 
the  general  doctrine  of  Providence,  but  that  most  interesting  branch  of 
it,  the  connection  of  dispensations  of  prosperity  and  affliction  with  mo- 
ral ends.  Murder,  theft,  oppression,  injustice,  adultery,  intemperance, 
are  all  pointed  out  as  violations  of  the  laws  of  God ;  and  also  wrath, 
envy,  and  other  evil  passions.  Purity  of  heart,  kindness,  compassion  to 
the  poor,  &c,  are  spoken  of  as  virtues  of  the  highest  obligation  ;  and  the 
fear  and  love  of  God  are  enjoined,  with  a  calm  and  cheerful  submission 
to  his  will,  in  humble  trust  that  the  darkness  of  present  events  will  be 
ultimately  cleared  up,  and  shown  to  be  consistent  with  the  wisdom, 
justice,  holiness,  and  truth  of  God.  The  same  points  of  doctrine  and 
morals  may  also  be  collected  from  the  book  of  Genesis. 

Such  was  the  comprehensive  system  of  patriarchal  theology ;  and  it 
is  not  necessary  to  stop  to  point  out,  that  these  great  principles  are  all 
recognized  and  taken  up  in  the  successive  revelations  by  Moses  and  by 
Christ, — exhibiting  three  religious  systems,  varying  greatly  in  circum. 
stances ;  introduced  at  widely  distant  ■periods,  and  by  agents  greatly 
differing  in  their  condition  and  circumstances ;  but  exactly  harmonizing 
in  every  leading  doctrinal  tenet,  and  agreeing  in  their  great  moral  impres- 
sion upon  mankind — perfect  purity  or  heart  an»  conduct. 

3.  That  it  should  be  accompanied  with  an  explicit  and  impressive 
external  authentication,  of  such  a  nature  as  to  make  its  truth  obvious 
to  the  mass  of  mankind,  and  to  leave  no  reasonable  doubt  of  its  Di- 
vine authority. 

The  reason  of  this  is  evident.  A  mere  impression  of  truth  on  the 
understanding  could  not  by  itself  be  distinguished  from  a  discovery  made 
by  the  human  intellect,  and  could  have  no  authority,  as  a  declaration  of 
the  will  of  a  superior,  with  the  person  receiving  it ;  and  as  to  others,  it 
could  only  pass  for  the  opinion  of  the  individual  who  might  promulge  it. 
(Vide  chap.  3.)  An  authentication  of  a  system  of  truth,  which  professes 
to  be  the  will,  the  law,  of  him  who,  having  made,  has  the  right  to  com- 


FIRST.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  65 

mand  us,  external  to  the  matter  of  the  doctrine  itself,  is  therefore  ne- 
cessary to  give  it  authority,  and  to  create  the  obligation  of  obedience. 
This  accords  with  the  opinion  of  all  nations  up  to  the  earliest  ages, 
and  was  so  deeply  wrought  in  the  common  sense  of  mankind,  that  all 
the  heathen  legislators  of  antiquity  affected  a  Divine  commission,  and 
all  false  religions  have  leaned  for  support  upon  pretended  supernatural 
sanctions.  The  proofs  of  this  are  so  numerous  and  well  known,  that 
it  is  unnecessary  to  adduce  them. 

The  authority  of  the  ancient  patriarchal  religion  rested  on  proor 
external  to  itself.  We  do  not  now  examine  the  truth  of  its  alleged 
authentications, — they  were  admitted  ;  and  the  force  of  the  revelation 
depended  upon  them  in  the  judgment  of  mankind.  We  have  a  most 
ancient  book,  which  records  the  opinions  of  the  ante-Mosaic  ages. 
The  theology  of  those  ages  has  been  stated  ;  and  from  the  history  con- 
tained in  that  book  we  learn,  that  the  received  opinion  was,  that  the 
almighty  Lawgiver  himself  conversed  with  our  first  parents  and  with 
the  patriarchs,  under  celestial  appearances  ;  and  that  his  mercies  to 
men,  or  his  judgments,  failed  not  to  follow  ordinarily  the  observance 
or  violation  of  the  laws  thus  delivered,  which  was  in  fact  an  authenti- 
cation of  them  renewed  from  time  to  time.  The  course  of  nature,  dis- 
playing the  eternal  power  and  Godhead,  as  well  as  the  visitations  of 
Providence,  was  to  them  a  constant  confirmation  of  several  of  the 
;  leading  truths  in  the  theology  they  had  received  ;  and  by  the  deep  im- 
\  press  of  Divinity  which  this  system  received  in  the  earliest  ages  from 
the  attestations  of  singular  judgments,  and  especially  the  flood,  it  is 
only  rationally  to  be  accounted  for,  that  it  was  universally  transmit- 
ted, and  waged  so  long  a  war  against  religious  corruptions. 

But  notwithstanding  the  authentication  of  the  primitive  religion,  as 
a  matter  of  Divine  revelation,  and  the  effects  produced  by  it  in  the  world 
for  many  ages ;  and  indeed  still  produced  by  it  in  its  very  broken  and 
corrupted  state,  in  condemning  many  sinful  actions,  so  as  to  render 
the  crimes  of  heathens  without  excuse  ;  that  system  was  traditional, 
and  liable  to  be  altered  by  transmission.  In  proportion  also  as  histo- 
rical events  were  confounded  by  the  lapse  of  time,  and  as  the  migra- 
tions and  political  convulsions  of  nations  gave  rise  to  fabulous  stories, 
the  external  authenticating  evidence  became  weak,  and  thus  a  merci- 
ful interposition  on  the  part  of  God  was,  as  we  have  seen,  rendered 
necessary  by  the  general  igno;ance  of  mankind.  Indeed  the  primitive 
revelations  supposed  future  ones,  and  were  not  in  themselves  regarded 
as  complete.  But  if  a  republication  only  of  the  truth  had  been  neces- 
sary, the  old  external  evidence  was  so  greatly  weakened  by  the  lapse 
of  ages,  which  as  to  most  nations  had  broken  the  line  of  historical 
testimony  on  which  it  so  greatly  rested,  that  it  required  a  new  authen- 
tication, in  a  form  adapted  to  the  circumstances  of  the  world ;  and  if 
Vol.  I.  5 


66  THEOLOGICAL   INSTITUTES.  |PART 

an  enlarged  revelation  were  vouchsafed,  every  addition  to  the  declared 
will  of  God  needed  an  authentication  of  the  same  kind  as  at  first. 

If  we  presume,  therefore,  that  a  new  revelation  was  necessary,  we 
must  presume,  that,  when  given,  it  would  have  an  external  authentica- 
tion as  coming  from  God,  from  which  there  could  be  no  reasonable 
appeal ;  and  we  therefore  conclude,  that  as  the  Mosaic  and  Christian 
revelations  profess  both  to  republish  and  to  enlarge  former  revelations, 
the  circumstance  of  their  resting  their  claims  on  the  external  evidence 
of  miracles  and  prophecy,  is  a  presumption  in  their  favour.  Whether 
the  evidence  which  they  offer  be  decisive  or  not,  is  a  future  question ; 
but  in  exhibiting  such  evidence,  they  accord  with  the  reason  of  the 
thing,  and  with  the  common  sense  of  all  ages. 

4.  It  is  farther  presumed,  that,  should  a  revelation  of  religious  truth 
and  the  will  of  God  be  made,  it  would  provide  means  for  its  effectual 
communication  to  all  classes  of  men. 

As  the  revelation  supposed  must  be  designed  to  restore  and  enlarge 
the  communications  of  truth,  and  as,  from  the  increase  and  dispersion 
of  the  human  race,  tradition  had  become  an  imperfect  medium  of  con- 
veying it,  it  is  a  fair  presumption,  that  the  persons  through  whom  the 
communication  was  made  should  record  it  in  writing.  A  revelation 
to  every  individual  could  not  maintain  the  force  of  its  original  authen. 
tication  ;  because  as  its  attestation  must  be  of  a  supernatural  kind,  its 
constant  recurrence  would  divest  it  of  that  character,  or  weaken  its 
force  by  bringing  it  among  common  and  ordinary  events.  A  revela- 
tion on  the  contrary  to  few,  properly  and  publicly  attested  by  super- 
natural occurrences,  needed  not  repetition  ;  but  the  most  natural  and 
effectual  mode  of  preserving  the  communication,  once  made,  would  be 
to  transmit  it  by  writing.  Any  corruption  of  the  record  would  be 
rendered  impracticable  by  its  being  publicly  taught  in  the  first  instance ; 
by  a  standard  copy  being  preserved  with  care  ;  or  by  such  a  number 
of  copies  being  dispersed  as  to  defy  material  alteration.  This  pre- 
sumption is  realized  also  in  the  Jewish  and  Christian  revelations  ;  as 
will  be  seen  when  the  subject  of  the  authority  of  the  Holy  Scriptures 
comes  to  be  discussed.  They  were  first  publicly  taught,  then  com- 
mitted to  writing,  and  the  copies  were  multiplied. 

Another  method  of  preserving  and  diffusing  the  knowledge  of  a  re- 
velation once  made,  would  be,  the  institution  of  public  commemorative 
rites,  at  once  preserving  the  memory  t*  the  fact,  and  of  the  doctrine 
connected  with  it,  among  great  bodies  of  people,  and  leading  them  to 
such  periodical  inquiries  as  might  preserve  both  with  the  greatest  ac- 
curacy. These  also  we  find  in  the  institutions  of  Moses,  and  of  Christ ; 
and  their  weight  in  the  argument  for  the  truth  of  the  mission  of  each, 
will  be  adduced  in  its  proper  place. 

Allowing  it  to  be  reasonable  to  presume,  that  a  revelation  would  be 


FIRST.]  THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES.  67 

vouchsafed  ;  it  is  equally  so  to  presume,  that  it  should  contain  some 
injunctions  favourable  to  its  propagation  among  men  of  all  ranks.  For 
as  the  compassion  of  God  to  the  moral  necessities  of  his  creatures, 
generally,  is  the  ground  on  which  so  great  a  favour  rests,  we  cannot 
suppose  that  one  class  of  men  should  be  allowed  to  make  a  monopoly 
of  this  advantage ;  and  this  would  be  a  great  temptation  to  them  to 
publish  their  own  favourite  or  interested  opinions  under  a  pretended 
Divine  sanction,  and  tend  to  counteract  the  very  purpose  for  which  a 
revelation  was  given.  Such  a  monopoly  was  claimed  by  the  priests 
of  ancient  pagan  nations  ;  and  that  fatal  effect  followed.  It  was 
claimed  for  a  time  by  a  branch  of  the  Christian  priesthood,  contrary 
to  the  obligations  of  the  institution  itself ;  and  the  consequences  were 
similar.  Among  the  heathens,  the  effect  of  this  species  of  monopoly 
was,  that  those  who  encouraged  superstition  and  ignorance  among  the 
people,  speedily  themselves  lost  the  truth,  which,  through  a  wicked 
policy,  they  concealed ;  and  the  case  might  have  been  the  same  in 
Christendom,  but  for  the  sacred  records,  and  for  those  witnesses  to  the 
truth  who  prophesied  and  suffered,  more  or  less,  throughout  the  dark- 
est ages.    (4) 

This  reasonable  expectation  also  is  realized  in  the  Mosaic  and 
Christian  revelations ; — both  provided  for  their  general  publication — 
both  instituted  an  order  of  men,  not  to  conceal,  but  to  read  and  teach 
the  truth  committed  to  them — both  recognized  a  right  in  the  people  to 
search  the  record,  and  by  it  to  judge  of  the  ministration  of  the  priests — 
both  made  it  obligatory  on  the  people  to  be  taught — and  both  sepa- 
rated one  day  in  seven  to  afford  leisure  for  that  purpose. 

Nothing  but  such  a  revelation,  and  with  such  accompanying  circum- 
stances, appears  capable  of  reaching  the  actual  case  of  mankind,  and 
of  effectually  instructing  and  bringing  them  under  moral  control ;  (5) 
tmd,  whether  the  Bible  can  be  proved  to  be  of  Divine  authority  or  not, 
this  at  least  must  be  granted,  that  it  presents  itself  to  us  under  these 
circumstances,  and  claims,  for  this  very  reason,  the  most  serious  and 
unprejudiced  attention. 

(4)  Bishop  Warburton  endeavours  to  prove,  by  an  elaborate  argument  in  his 
"  Divine  Legation,"  that  in  the  Greater  Mysteries,  the  Divine  Unity  and  the 
errors  of  Polytheism  were  constantly  taught.  This,  however,  is  most  satisfacto- 
rily disproved  by  Dr.  Leland,  in  his  "  Advantage  and  Necessity  of  a  Divine  Reve- 
lation ;"  to  both  of  which  works  the  reader  is  referred  for  information  as  to  those 
singular  institutions — the  heathen  mysteries. 

(5)  Sec  note  8  at  the  end  of  the  chapter. 


68  THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES.  rPART 


Note  A. — Page  63. 

Different  opinions  have  been  held  as  to  the  ground  of  moral  obligation.  Gro- 
tms,  Balguy,  and  Dr.  S.  Clarke,  place  it  in  the  eternal  and  necessary  fitness  of 
things.  To  this  there  are  two  objections.  The  First  is,  that  it  leaves  the  dis- 
tinction between  virtue  and  vice,  in  a  great  measure,  arbitrary  and  indefinite, 
dependent  upon  our  perception  of  fitness  and  unfitness,  which,  in  different  indi- 
viduals,  will  greatly  differ.  The  Second  is,  that  when  a  fitness  or  unfitness  is 
proved,  it  is  no  more  than  the  discovery  of  a  natural  essential  difference  or  con- 
gruity,  which  alone  cannot  constitute  a  moral  obligation  to  choose  what  is  fit, 
and  to  reject  what  is  unfit.  When  we  have  proved  a  fitness  in  a  certain  course 
of  action,  we  have  not  proved  that  it  is  obligatory.  A  second  step  is  necessary 
before  we  can  reach  this  conclusion.  Cudworth,  Butler,  Price,  and  others, 
maintain,  that  virtue  carries  its  own  obligation  in  itself;  that  the  understanding 
at  once  perceives  a  certain  action  to  he  right,  and  therefore  it  ought  to  be  per, 
formed.  Several  objections  lie  to  this  notion.  1.  It  supposes  the  understandings 
of  men  to  determine  precisely  in  the  same  manner  concerning  all  virtuous  and 
vicious  actions,  which  is  contrary  to  fact.  2.  It  supposes  a  previous  rule,  by  which 
the  action  is  determined  to  be  right ;  but  if  the  revealed  will  of  God  is  not  to  be 
taken  into  consideration,  what  common  rule  exists  among  men  ?  There  is  evi- 
dently no  such  rule,  and  therefore  no  means  of  certainly  determining  what  is 
right.  3.  If  a  common  standard  were  known  among  men,  and  if  the  understand- 
ings of  men  determined  in  the  same  manner  as  to  the  conformity,  or  otherwise, 
of  an  action  to  that  standard;  what  renders  it  a  matter  of  obligation  that  any 
one  should  perform  it  ?  The  rule  must  be  proved  to  be  binding,  or  no  ground  of 
obligation  is  established. 

An  action  is  obligatory,  say  others,  because  it  is  agreeable  to  the  moral  sense. 
This  is  the  theory  of  Lord  Shaftesbury  and  Dr.  Hutchinson.  By  moral  sense 
appears  to  be  meant  an  instinctive  approbation  of  right,  and  abhorrence  of  wrong, 
prior  to  all  reflection  on  their  nature,  or  their  consequences.  If  any  thing  else 
were  understood  by  it,  then  the  moral  sense  must  be  the  same  with  conscience, 
which  we  know  to  vary  with  the  judgment,  and  cannot  therefore  be  the  basis  of 
moral  obligation.  If  conscience  be  not  meant,  then  the  moral  sense  must  be 
considered  as  instinctive,  a  notion,  certainly,  which  is  disproved  by  the  whole 
moral  history  of  man.  It  may,  indeed,  be  conceded,  that  such  is  the  constitution 
of  the  human  soul,  that  when  those  distinctions  between  actions,  which  have 
been  taught  by  religious  tradition  or  direct  revelation,  are  known  in  their  nature, 
relations,  and  consequences,  the  calm  and  sober  judgments  of  men  will  approve 
of  them  ;  and  that  especially  when  they  are  considered  abstractedly,  that  is,  as 
not  affecting  and  controlling  their  own  interests  and  passions  immediately,  virtue 
may  command  complacency,  and  vice  provoke  abhorrence  ;  but  that,  independent 
of  reflection  on  their  nature  or  their  consequences,  there  is  an  instinctive  prin- 
ciple in  man  which  abhors  evil,  and  loves  good,  is  contradicted  by  that  variety 
of  opinion  and  feeling  on  the  vices  and  virtues,  which  obtains  among  all  unin- 
structed  nations.  We  applaud  the  forgiveness  of  an  injury  as  magnanimous  ;  a 
savage  despises  it  as  mean.  We  think  it  a  duty  to  support  and  cherish  aged  pa- 
rents ;  many  nations,  on  the  contrary,  abandon  them  as  useless,  and  throw 
them  to  the  beasts  of  the  field.  Innumerable  instances  of  this  contrariety  might 
be  adduced,  which  are  all  contrary  to  the  notion  of  instinctive  sentiment.  In- 
stincts operate  uniformly,  but  this  assumed  moral  sense  does  not.  Beside,  if  it 
be  mere  matter  of  feeling,  independent  of  judgment,  to  love  virtue,  and  abhor 


FIRST.]  TIIEtXLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  69 

vice,  the  morality  of  the  exercise  of  this  principle  is  questionable  ;  for  it  tvould 
be  difficult  to  show,  that  there  is  any  more  morality,  properly  speaking,  in  the 
affections  and  disgusts  of  instinct  than  in  those  of  the  palate.  If  judgment,  the 
knowledge  and  comparison  of  things,  be  included,  then  this  principle  supposes  a 
uniform  and  universal  individual  revelation,  as  to  the  nature  of  things,  to  every 
man,  or  an  intuitive  faculty  of  determining  their  moral  quality  ;  both  of  which 
are  too  absurd  to  be  maintained. 

The  only  satisfactory  conclusion  on  this  subject,  is  that  which  refers  moral 
obligation  to  the  will  of  God.  "  Obligation,"  says  Warburton,  "  necessarily  im- 
plies an  obliger,  and  the  obliger  must  be  different  from,  and  not  one  and  the  same 
with,  the  obliged.  Moral  obligation,  that  is,  the  obligation  of  a  free  agent,  farther 
implies  a  law,  which  enjoins  and  forbids;  but  a  law  is  the  imposition  of  an  intel- 
ligent superior,  who  hath  power  to  exact  conformity  thereto."  This  lawgiver  is 
God:  and  whatever  may  be  the  reasons  which  have  led  him  to  enjoin  this,  and  to 
prohibit  that,  it  is  plain  that  the  obligation  to  obey  lies  not  merely  in  the  fitness 
and  propriety  of  a  creature  obeying  an  infinitely  wisa  and  good  Creator,  though 
such  a  fitness  exists  ;  but  in  that  obedience  being  enjoined. 

Some,  allowing  this,  would  push  the  mattor  farther,  in  search  of  a  more  remote 
ground  of  obligation.  They  put  the  question,  "Why  am  I  obliged  to  obey  the 
will  of  God?"  and  give  us  the  answer,  "  Because  obedience  to  the  commands  of 
a  benevolent  God  must  be  productive  of  the  agent's  happiness  on  the  whole."  But 
this  is  putting  out  to  sea  again;  for,  1.  It  cannot  be  proved  that  the  considera- 
tion of  our  own  happiness  is  a  ground  of  moral  obligation  at  all,  except  in  some 
such  vague  sense  as  wo  use  the  term  obligation  when  we  say,  "  We  are  obliged 
to  take  exercise,  if  we  would  preserve  our  health."  2.  We  should  be  in  danger 
of  setting  up  a  standard,  by  which  to  judge  of  the  propriety  of  obeying  God,  when, 
indeed,  we  are  but  inadequate  judges  of  what  is  for  our  happiness,  on  the  whole  : 
or.  3.  It  would  make  moral  obligation  to  rest  upon  out  faith,  that  God  can  will 
only  our  happiness,  which  is  a  singular  principle  on  which  to  build  our  obedi- 
ence. On  the  contrary,  the  simple  principle  that  moral  obligation  rests  upon  the 
will  of  God,  by  whatever  means  that  will  may  be  known,  is  unclogged  with  any 
of  these  difficulties.  For,  1.  It  is  founded  on  a  clear  principle  of  justice.  He 
who  made  has  an  absolute  property  in  us,  and  may  therefore  command  us  ;  and 
having  actually  commanded  us,  we  cannot  set  up  any  claim  of  exemption — we 
are  his.  2.  He  has  connected  reward  with  obedience,  and  punishment  with  dis- 
obedience, and  therefore  made  it  necessary  for  us  to  obey,  if  we  would  secure  our 
own  happiness.  Thus  we  are  obliged,  both  by  the  force  of  the  abstract  principle, 
and  by  the  motive  resulting  from  a  sanctioned  command  ;  or,  in  the  language 
of  the  schools,  we  are  obliged  in  reason,  and  obliged  in  interest,  but  each  obliga- 
tion evidently  emanates  from  the  will  of  God.  Other  considerations,  such  as  the 
excellence  and  beauty  of  virtue,  its  tendency  to  individual  happiness  and  univer- 
sal order,  &c,  may  smooth  the  path  of  obedience,  and  render  "his  commandments 
joyous;"  but  the  obligation,  strictly  speaking,  can  only  rest  in  the  will  of  the  su- 
perior and  commanding  power. 


Note  B. — Page  67. 

Though  some  will  allow  the  ignorance  of  former  times,  they  think  that  the  im. 
proved  reason  of  man  is  now  more  adequate  to  the  discovery  of  moral  truth. 

"  They  contend,  that  the  world  was  then  in  the  infancy  of  knowledge  ;  and 
argue,  as  if  the  illustri.us  sages  of  old,  (whom  they  nevertheless  sometimes  extol, 


70  THEOLOGICAL   INSTITUTES.  [PABT 

in  terms  of  extravagant  panegyric,)  were  very  babes  in  philosophy,  such  as  the 
wise  ones  of  later  ages  regard  with  a  sort  of  contemptuous  commiseration. 

"  But,  may  we  not  be  permitted  to  ask,  whence  this  assumed  superiority  of  mo 
dern  over  ancient  philosophers  has  arisen  ?  and  whence  the  extraordinary  influx 
of  light  upon  these  latter  times  has  been  derived  ?  Is  there  any  one  so  infatuated 
by  his  admiration  of  the  present  age,  as  seriously  to  think,  that  the  intellectual 
powers  of  man  are  stronger  and  more  perfect  now  than  they  were  wont  to  be ; 
or  that  the  particular  talents  of  himself,  or  any  of  his  contemporaries,  are  supe. 
rior  to  those  which  shone  forth  in  the  luminaries  of  the  Gentile  world  ?  Do  the 
names  even  of  Locke,  Cudworth,  Cumberland,  Clarke,  Wilkins,  or  Wollaston, 
(men  so  justly  eminent  in  modern  times,  and  who  laboured  so  indefatigably  to 
perfect  the  theory  of  natural  religion,)  convey  to  us  an  idea  of  greater  intellectual 
ability  than  those  of  the  consummate  masters  of  the  Portico,  the  Grove,  or  fhe 
Lyceum  ?  How  is  it,  then,  that  the  advocates  for  the  natural  perfection,  or  per- 
fectibility, of  human  reason,  do  not  perceive,  that  for  all  the  superiority  of  the 
present  over  former  times,  with  respect  to  religious  knowledge,  we  must  be  in- 
debted to  some  intervening  cause,  and  not  to  any  actual  enlargement  of  the  hu- 
man faculties  ?  Is  it  to  be  believed,  that  any  man  of  the  present  age,  of  whatever 
natural  talents  he  may  be  possessed,  could  have  advanced  one  step  beyond  the 
heathen  philosophers  in  his  pursuit  of  Divine  truth,  had  he  lived  in  their  times, 
and  enjoyed  only  the  light  that  was  bestowed  upon  them  ?  Or  can  it  be  fairly 
proved,  that,  merely  by  the  light  of  nature,  or  by  reasoning  upon  such  data  only 
as  men  possess  who  never  heard  of  revealed  religion,  any  moral  or  religious  truth 
has  been  discovered  since  the  days  when  Athens  and  Rome  affected  to  give  laws 
to  the  intellectual,  as  well  as  to  tho  political  world  ?  That  great  improvements 
have  since  been  made,  in  framing  systems  of  ethics,  of  metaphysics,  and  of  what 
is  called  natural  theology,  need  not  be  denied.  But  these  improvements  may 
easily  be  traced  to  one  obvious  cause,  the  widely  diffused  light  of  the  Gospel, 
which,  having  shone,  with  more  or  less  lustre,  on  all  nations,  has  imparted,  even 
to  the  most  simple  and  illiterate  of  the  sons  of  men,  such  a  degree  of  knowledge 
on  these  subjects,  as,  without  it,  would  be  unattainable  by  the  most  learned  and 
profound."  (Van  Mildert's  Boyle's  Led.) 


CHAPTER  IX. 

The  Evidences  necessary  to  authenticate  a  Revelation. — 
External  Evidence. 

The  evidence  usually  offered  in  proof  of  the  Divine  authority  of 
the  Scriptures,  may  be  divided  into  external,  internal,  and  colla- 
teral. The  external  evidence  consists  of  miracles  and  prophecy , 
the  internal  evidence  is  drawn  from  the  consideration  of  the  doctrines 
taught,  as  being  consistent  with  the  character  of  God,  and  tending  to 
promote  the  virtue  and  happiness  of  man  ;  and  the  collateral  evidence 
arises  from  a  variety  of  circumstances,  which,  less  directly  than  the 
former,  prove  the  revelation  to  be  of  Divine  authority,  but  are  yet  sup- 
posed to  be  of  great  weight  in  the  argument.  On  each  of  these  kinds  of 
evidence  we  shall  offer  some  general  remarks,  tending  to  prepare  the  way 
for  a  demonstration  of  the  Divine  authority  of  the  Holy  Scriptures. 


FIRST.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  71 

The  principal  and  most  appropriate  evidences  of  a  revelation  from 
God,  must  be  external  to  the  revelation  itself.  This  has  been  before 
stated  ;  but  it  may  require  a  larger  consideration. 

A  Divine  revelation  has  been  well  defined  to  be  "  a  discovery  of 
some  proposition  to  the  mind,  which  came  not  in  by  the  usual  exer- 
cise of  its  faculties,  but  by  some  miraculous  Divine  interposition  and 
attestation,  either  mediate  or  immediate."  (Doddridge's  Lectures,  part 
5,  definition  68.)  It  is  not  thought  necessary  to  attempt  to  prove  such 
a  revelation  possible ;  for,  as  our  argument  is  supposed  to  be  with  a 
person  who  acknowledges,  not  only  that  there  is  a  God,  but  that  he  is 
the  Creator  of  men ;  it  would  be  absurd  in  such  a  one  to  deny,  that 
he  who  gave  us  minds  capable  of  knowledge  is  not  able,  instantly  and 
immediately,  to  convey  knowledge  to  us ;  and  that  he  who  has  given 
us  the  power  of  communicating  ideas  to  each  other,  should  have  no 
means  of  communicating  with  us  immediately  from  himself. 

We  need  not  inquire  whether  external  evidence  of  a  revelation  is  in 
all  cases  requisite  to  him  who  immediately  and  at  first  receives  it ;  for 
the  question  is  not,  whether  private  revelations  have  ever  been  made 
by  God  to  individuals,  and  what  evidence  is  required  to  authenticate 
them  ;  but  what  is  the  kind  of  evidence  which  we  ought  to  require  of 
one  who  professes  to  have  received  a  revelation  of  the  will  of  God,  with 
a  command  to  communicate  it  to  us,  and  to  enjoin  it  upon  our  accept- 
ance and  submission,  as  the  rule  of  our  opinions  and  manners.- 

He  may  believe  that  a  divine  communication  has  been  made  to 
himself;  but  his  belief  has  no  authority  to  command  ours.  He  may 
have  actually  received  it ;  but  we  have  not  the  means  of  knowing  it 
without  proof. 

That  proof  is  not  the  high  and  excellent  nature  of  the  truths  he 
teaches:  in  other  words,  that  which  is  called  the  internal  evidence  can- 
not be  that  proof.  For  we  cannot  tell  whether  the  doctrines  he  teaches, 
though  they  should  be  capable  of  a  higher  degree  of  rational  demon- 
stration than  any  delivered  to  the  world  before,  may  not  be  the  fruits  of 
his  own  mental  labour.  He  may  be  conscious  that  they  are  not ;  but  tee 
have  no  means  of  knowing  that  of  which  he  is  conscious,  except  by  his 
own  testimony.  To  us  therefore  they  would  have  no  authority  but  as 
the  opinions  of  a  man,  whose  intellectual  attainments  we  might  admire, 
but  to  whom  we  could  not  submit  as  to  an  infallible  guide  ;  and  the  less 
so,  if  any  part  of  the  doctrine  taught  by  him  were  either  mysterious  and 
above  our  reason,  or  contrary  to  our  interests,  prejudices,  and  passions. 

If  therefore  any  person  should  profess  to  have  received  a  revelation 
of  truth  from  God  to  teach  to  mankind,  and  that  he  was  directed  to  com- 
mand their  obedience  to  it  on  pain  of  the  Divine  displeasure,  he  would 
oe  asked  for  some  external  authentication  of  his  mission  ;  nor  would  the 
reasonableness  and  excellence  of  his  doctrines  be  accepted  in  place  of 


72  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

this.  The  latter  might  entitle  him  to  attention  ;  but  nothing  short  of  the 
former  would  be  thought  a  ground  sufficiently  strong  for  yielding  to  him 
an  absolute  obedience.  Without  it  he  might  reason,  and  be  heard  with 
respect ;  but  he  could  not  command.  On  this  very  reasonable  ground, 
the  Jews,  on  one  occasion,  asked  our  Lord,  "  By  what  authority  doest 
thou  these  things  ?"  and  on  another,  "  What  sign  showest  thou  unto  us  V 

Agreeably  to  this,  the  authors  both  of  the  Jewish  and  the  Christian 
revelations  profess  to  have  authenticated  their  mission  by  the  two 
great  external  proofs,  Miracles  and  Prophecy  ;  and  it  remains  to 
be  considered  whether  this  kind  of  authentication  be  reasonably  suffi- 
cient to  command  our  faith  and  obedience. 

The  question  is  not,  Whether  we  may  not  conceive  of  external 
proofs  of  the  mission  of  Moses,  and  of  Christ  and  his  apostles,  differ- 
ing from  those  which  are  assumed  to  have  been  given,  and  more  con- 
vincing. In  whatever  way  the  authentication  had  been  made,  we 
might  have  conceived  of  modes  of  proof  differing  in  kind  or  more  ample 
in  circumstance  ;  so  that  to  ground  an  objection  upon  the  absence  of  a 
particular  kind  of  proof  for  which  we  have  a  preference,  would  be 
trifling.  (6)     But  this  is  the  question,  Is  a  mission  to  teach  the  will  of 

(6)  "We  know  not  beforehand  what  degree  or  kind  of natural  information  it 
were  to  be  expected  God  would  afford  men,  each  by  his  own  reason  and  experi- 
ence, nor  how  far  he  would  enable  and  effectually  dispose  them  to  communicate 
it,  whatever  it  should  be,  to  each  other ;  nor  whether  the  evidence  of  it  would  be 
certain,  highly  probable,  or  doubtful ;  nor  whether  it  would  be  given  with  equal 
clearness  and  conviction  to  all.  Nor  could  we  guess,  upon  any  good  ground  I 
mean,  whether  natural  knowledge,  or  even  the  faculty  itself,  by  which  we  ara 
capable  of  attaining  it,  reason,  would  be  given  us  at  once, '  gradually.  In  like 
manner  we  are  wholly  ignorant  what  degree  of  new  know  xlge,  it  were  to  be  ex- 
pected, God  would  give  mankind,  by  revelation,  upon  supposition  of  his  affording 
one  ;  or  how  far,  or  in  what  way,  he  would  interpose  miraculously  to  qualify  them, 
to  whom  he  should  originally  make  the  revelation,  for  communicating  the  know- 
ledge given  by  it,  and  to  secure  their  doing  it  to  the  age  in  which  they  should 
live,  and  to  secure  its  being  transmitted  to  posterity.  Wo  are  equally  ignorant 
whether  the  evidence  of  it  would  be  certain,  or  highly  probable,  or  doubtful : 
■or  whether  all  who  should  have  any  degree  of  instruction  from  it,  and  any  de- 
gree of  evidence  of  its  truth,  would  have  the  same  ;  or  whether  the  scheme  would 
be  revealed  at  once,  or  unfolded  gradually.  Nay,  we  are  not,  in  any  sort,  able  to 
judge  whether  it  were  to  have  been  expected,  that  the  revelation  should  have 
•been  committed  to  writing,  or  left  to  be  handed  down,  and  consequently  corrupt- 
ed, by  verbal  tradition,  and,  at  length,  sunk  under  it,  if  mankind  so  pleased, 
and  during  such  time  as  they  are  permitted,  in  the  degree  they  evidently  are,  to 
act  as  they  will. 

"  Now,  since  it  has  been  shown  that  we  have  no  principles  of  reason  upon 
which  to  judge  beforehand,  how  it  were  to  be  expected  revelation  should  have 
been  left,  or  what  was  most  suitable  to  the  Divine  plan  of  government  in  any  of 
the  forementioncd  respects ;  it  must  be  quite  frivolous  to  object  afterward  as  to 
any  of  them,  against  its  being  left  one  way  rather  than  another;  for  this  would 
be  to  object  against  things,  upon  account  of  their  being  different  from  our  ci.- 


FIRST.]  THEOLOGICAL   INSTITUTES.  73 

God  to  man,  under  his  immediate  authority,  sufficiently  authenticated 
when  miracles  are  really  performed,  and  prophecies  actually  and  une- 
quivocally accomplished  ?  To  this  point  only  the  inquiry  need  now  go  ; 
for  whether  real  miracles  were  performed  by  Moses  and  Christ,  and 
whether  prophecies  were  actually  uttered  by  them,  and  received  une- 
quivocal accomplishment,  will  be  reserved  for  a  farther  stage  of  the 
inquiry. 

There  is  a  popular,  a  philosophic,  and  a  theological  sense  of  the 
term  miracle. 

A  miracle,  in  the  popular  sense,  is  a  prodigy,  or  an  extraordinary 
event,  which  surprises  us  by  its  novelty.  In  a  more  accurate  and 
philosophic  sense,  a  miracle  is  an  effect  which  does  not  follow  from 
any  of  the  regular  laws  of  nature,  or  which  is  inconsistent  with  some 
known  law  of  it,  or  contrary  to  the  settled  constitution  and  course  of 
things.  Accordingly,  all  miracles  presuppose  an  established  system 
of  nature,  within  the  limits  of  which  they  operate,  and  with  the  order 
of  which  they  disagree. 

Of  a  miracle  in  the  theological  sense,  many  definitions  have  been 
given.  (7)  That  of  Dr.  Samuel  Clarke  is, — "  A  miracle  is  a  work 
effected  in  a  manner  unusual,  or  different  from  the  common  and  regu- 
lar method  of  providence,  by  the  interposition  of  God  himself,  or  of 
some  intelligent  agent  superior  to  man,  for  the  proof  or  evidence  of 
some  particular  doctrine,  or  in  attestation  of  the  authority  of  some 
particular  person." 

Mr.  Home  defines  a  miracle  to  be  "  an  effect  or  event  contrary  to 
the  established  constitution  or  course  of  things,  or  a  sensible  suspen- 
sion or  controlment  of,  or  deviation  from,  the  known  laws  of  nature, 
wrought  either  by  the  immediate  act,  or  by  the  assistance,  or  by  the 
permission  of  God."  (Introduction  to  the  Critical  Study  of  the  Scrip- 
lures,  vol.  1,  c.  4,  sec.  2.)  This  definition  would  be  more  complete  in 
the  theological  sense,  if  the  last  clause  in  Dr.  S.  Clarke's  definition 
were  added  to  it,  "  for  the  proof  or  evidence  of  some  particular  doctrine, 
pectations,  which  has  been  shown  to  be  without  roason.  And  thus  wo  see  that 
the  only  question  concerning  the  truth  of  Christianity  is,  whether  it  be  a  real 
revelation  ;  not  whether  it  be  attended  with  every  circumstance  which  we  should 
have  looked  for ;  and  concerning  the  authority  of  Scripture,  whether  it  bo  what 
it  claims  to  be ;  not  whether  it  be  a  book  of  such  sort,  and  so  promulged  as  weak 
men  are  apt  to  fancy  a  book  containing  a  Divine  revelation  should  be.  And, 
therefore,  neither  obscurity,  nor  seeming  inaccuracy  of  style,  nor  various  read- 
ings, nor  early  disputes  about  the  authors  of  particular  parts,  nor  any  other  things 
of  the  like  kind,  though  they  had  been  much  more  considerable  in  degree  than 
they  are,  could  overthrow  the  authority  of  the  Scripture,  unless  the  prophet*., 
apostles,  or  our  Lord,  had  promised,  that  the  book,  containing  the  Divine  revela- 
tion, should  be  secure  from  those  things."     (Butler's  Analogy.) 

(7)  The  reader  may  see  several  of  them  enumerated  and  examined  in  Dod 
dridge's  Lectures,  part  5. 


74  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

or  in  attestation  of  the  authority  of  some  particular  person."  With  this 
addition  the  definition  will  be  sufficiently  satisfactory,  as  it  explains  the 
nature  of  the  phenomenon,  and  gives  the  reason  or  end  of  its  occurrence. 

Farmer,  in  his  "  Dissertation  on  Miracles,"  denies  to  any  created 
intelligences,  however  high,  the  power  of  working  miracles,  when  act- 
ing from  themselves  alone.  This  dispute  is  only  to  be  settled  by  a 
strict  definition  of  terms ;  but  whatever  power  may  be  allowed  to  supe- 
rior beings  to  produce  miraculous  effects,  or  effects  apparently  so,  by  the 
control  they  may  be  supposed  to  exert  over  natural  objects  ;  yet,  as  they 
are  all  under  the  government  of  God,  they  have  certainly  no  power  to 
interfere  with  his  work,  and  the  order  of  his  providence,  at  pleasure. 
Whatever  they  do,  therefore,  whether  by  virtue  of  natural  power,  or 
power  specially  communicated,  they  must  do  it  by  commission,  or  at 
least  by  license. 

The  miracles  under  consideration  are  such  effects  as  agree  with  the 
definition  just  given,  and  which  are  wrought  either  immediately  by  God 
himself,  to  attest  the  Divine  mission  of  particular  persons,  and  to  authen- 
ticate their  doctrines  ;  or  by  superior  beings  commissioned  by  him  for 
the  same  purpose  ;  or  by  the  persons  themselves  who  profess  this 
Divine  authority,  in  order  to  prove  that  they  have  been  invested  with 
it  by  God. 

The  possibility  of  miracles  wrought  by  the  power  of  God,  can  be 
denied  by  none  but  Atheists,  or  those  whose  system  is  substantially 
Atheistic.  Spinosa  denies  that  any  power  can  supersede  that  of  nature ; 
or  that  any  thing  can  disturb  or  interrupt  the  order  of  things  :  and  ac- 
cordingly he  defines  a  miracle  to  be  "  a  rare  event  happening  in  conse- 
quence of  some  laws  that  are  unknown  to  us."  This  is  a  definition  of 
a  prodigy,  not  of  a  miracle  ;  but  if  miracles  in  the  proper  sense  be  al- 
lowed, that  is,  if  the  facts  themselves  which  have  been  commonly  called 
miraculous  be  not  disputed,  this  method  of  accounting  for  them  is  obvi- 
ously most  absurd ;  inasmuch  as  it  is  supposed  that  these  unknown  laws 
chanced  to  come  into  operation,  just  when  men  professing  to  be  endued 
with  miraculous  powers  wished  them,  while  yet  such  laws  were  to  them 
unknown.  For  instance,  when  Moses  contended  with  the  Egyptian 
magicians,  though  these  laws  were  unknown  to  him,  he  ventured  to 
depend  upon  their  operation,  and  by  chance  they  served  his  purpose. 

To  one  who  believes  in  a  Supreme  Creator  of  all  things,  and  the  de- 
pendence of  all  things  upon  his  power  and  will,  miraculous  interpositions 
must  be  allowed  possible,  nor  is  there  any  thing  in  them  repugnant  to 
our  ideas  of  his  wisdom  and  immutability,  and  the  perfection  of  his 
works.  They  are  departures  from  the  ordinary  course  of  God's  opera- 
tion ;  but  this  does  not  arise  from  any  natural  necessity,  to  remedy  an 
unforeseen  evil,  or  to  repair  imperfections  in  his  work  ;  the  reasons  for 
them  are  moral  and  not  natural  reasons,  and  the  ends  they  are  intendea 


FIRST.]  THEOLOGICAL   INSTITUTES.  75 

to  accomplish  are  moral  ends.  They  remind  us,  when  they  occur,  that 
there  is  a  power  superior  to  nature,  and  that  all  nature,  even  to  its  first 
and  most  uniform  laws,  depends  upon  Him.  They  are  among  the  chief 
means  by  which  he  who  is  by  nature  invisible,  makes  himself  as  it  were 
visible  to  his  creatures,  who  are  so  prone  to  forget  him  entirely,  or  to 
lose  sight  of  him  by  reason  of  the  interposition  of  the  veil  of  material 
objects.  (8) 

Granting  then  the  possibility  of  miraculous  interposition  on  the  part 
of  the  great  Author  of  nature,  on  special  occasions,  and  for  great  ends, 
in  what  way  and  under  what  circumstances  does  such  an  interposition 
authenticate  the  Divine  mission  of  those  who  profess  to  be  sent  by  him 
to  teach  his  will  to  mankind  ? 

The  argument  is,  that  as  the  known  and  established  course  of  nature 
has  been  fixed  by  him  who  is  the  Creator  and  Preserver  of  all  things,  it 
can  never  be  violated,  departed  from,  or  controlled,  but  either  immedi- 

(8)  Bishop  Butler  has  satisfactorily  shown,  in  his  Analogy,  (part  ii,  c.  11,) 
that  there  can  be  no  such  presumption  against  miracles  as  to  render  them,  in  any 
wise,  incredible,  but  what  would  conclude  against  such  uncommon  appearances 
as  comets,  and  against  there  being  any  such  powers  in  nature  as  magnetism  and 
electricity,  so  contrary  to  the  properties  of  other  bodies  not  endued  with  these 
powers.  But  he  observes,  "Take  in  the  consideration  of  religion,  or  the  moral 
system  of  the  world,  and  then  we  see  distinct,  particular  reasons  for  miracles,  to 
afford  mankind  instruction,  additional  to  that  of  nature,  and  to  attest  the  truth 
of  it ;  and  our  being  able  to  discern  reasons  for  them,  gives  a  positive  credibility 
to  the  history  of  them,  in  cases  where  those  reasons  hold." 

"  It  is  impossible,"  says  an  oracle  among  modern  unbelievers,  (Voltaire,)  "  that 
a  Being,  infinitely  wise,  should  make  laws  in  order  to  violate  them.  He  would 
not  derange  the  machine  of  his  own  construction,  unless  it  were  for  its  improve- 
ment. But  as  a  God,  he  hath,  without  doubt,  made  it  as  perfect  as  possible ;  or, 
if  he  had  foreseen  any  imperfection  likely  to  result  from  it,  he  would  surely  have 
provided  against  it  from  the  beginning,  and  not  be  under  a  necessity  of  changing 
it  afterward.  He  is  both  unchangeable  and  omnipotent,  and  therefore  can  nei- 
ther have  any  desire  to  alter  the  course  of  nature,  nor  have  any  need  to  do  so." 

"  This  argument,"  says  Dr.  Van  Mildert,  "  is  grounded  on  a  misconception  or 
a  misrepresentation  of  the  design  of  miracles,  which  is  not  the  remedy  of  any 
physical  defect,  not  to  rectify  any  original  or  accidental  imperfections  in  the  laws 
of  nature,  but  to  manifest  to  the  world  the  interposition  of  the  Almighty,  for  espe- 
cial purposes  of  a  moral  kind.  It  is  simply  to  make  known  to  mankind,  that  it  is 
he  who  addresses  them,  and  that  whatever  is  accompanied  with  this  species  of 
evidence,  comes  from  him,  and  claims  their  implicit  belief  and  obedience.  The 
perfection,  therefore,  or  imperfection,  of  the  laws  of  nature  has  nothing  to  do  with 
the  question.  All  nature  is  subservient  to  the  will  of  God ;  and  as  his  existence 
and  attributes  are  manifest  in  the  ordinary  course  of  nature,  so,  in  the  extraor. 
dinary  work  of  miracles,  his  will  is  manifested  by  the  display  of  his  absolute 
sovereignty  over  the  course  of  nature.  Thus,  in  both  instances,  the  Creator  is 
glorified  in  his  works  ;  and  it  is  made  to  appear,  that  ■  by  him  all  things  consist,' 
and  that  •  for  his  pleasure  they  are,  and  were  created.'  This  seems  a  sufficient 
answer  to  any  reasoning,  a  priori,  against  miracles,  from  their  supposed  incon- 
sistency with  the  Divine  perfections." 


or   • 

UNIVERSITY  J 


76  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

ately  by  himself  or  mediately  by  other  beings  at  his  command,  and  by 
his  assistance  or  permission;  for  if  this  be  not  allowed,  we  must  .deny 
either  the  Divine  omnipotence,  or  his  natural  government ;  and,  if  these 
be  allowed,  the  other  follows.  Every  real  miracle  is  a  work  of  God, 
done  specially  by  him,  by  his  permission,  or  with  his  concurrence. 

In  order  to  distinguish  a  real  miracle,  it  is  necessary  that  the  com- 
mon  course  of  nature  should  be  understood ;  for  without  some  antece- 
dent knowledge  of  the  operation  of  physical  causes,  an  event  might  be 
deemed  miraculous  which  was  merely  strange,  and  through  our  igno- 
rance inexplicable.  Should  an  earthquake  happen  in  a  country  never 
before  visited  by  such  a  calamity  within  the  memory  of  man,  by  the 
ignorant  it  might  be  considered  miraculous ;  whereas  an  earthquake 
is  a  regular  effect  of  the  present  established  laws  of  nature. 

But  as  the  course  of  nature  and  the  operation  of  physical  causes  are 
but  partially  understood,  and  will  perhaps  never  be  fully  comprehended 
by  the  most  inquiring  minds,  it  seems  necessary  that  such  miracles  as 
are  intended  to  authenticate  any  religious  system,  promulged  for  the 
common  benefit  of  mankind,  should  be  effects  produced  upon  objects 
whose  properties  have  been  the  subject  of  common  and  long  observation ; 
that  it  should  be  contrary  to  some  known  laws  by  which  the  objects  in 
question  have  been  uniformly  and  long  observed  to  be  governed ;  or  that 
the  proximate  cause  of  the  effect  should  be  known  to  have  no  adequate 
power  or  adaptation  to  produce  it.  When  these  circumstances  occur 
separately,  and  more  especially  when  combined,  a  sufficient  antecedent 
acquaintance  with  the  course  of  nature  exists  to  warrant  the  conclusion, 
that  the  effect  is  miraculous,  or,  in  other  words,  that  it  is  produced  by  the 
special  interposition  of  God. 

Whether  the  works  ascribed  to  Moses  and  to  Christ,  and  recorded  in 
Scripture  were  actually  performed  by  them,  will  be  considered  in  another 
place  ;  but  here  it  is  proper  to  observe,  that,  assuming  their  actual 
occurrence,  they  are  of  such  a  nature  as  to  leave  no  reasonable  doubt 
of  their  miraculous  character ;  and  from  them  we  may  borrow  a  few 
instances  for  the  sake  of  illustrating  the  preceding  observations,  with- 
out prejudging  the  argument. 

The  rod  cast  from  the  hand  of  Moses  becomes  a  serpent.  Here  the 
subject  was  well  known  ;  it  was  a  rod,  a  branch  separated  from  a  tree, 
and  it  was  obviously  contrary  to  the  known  and  established  course  of 
nature,  that  it  should  undergo  so  signal  a  transformation.  If  the  fact 
can  be  proved,  the  miracle  must  therefore  follow. 

The  sea  is  parted  at  the  sti-etching  out  of  the  rod  of  Moses.  Here  is 
no  adaptation  of  the  proximate  cause  to  produce  the  effect,  which  was 
obviously  in  opposition  to  the  known  qualities  of  water.  A  recession  of 
the  sea  from  the  shores  would  have  taken  down  the  whole  mass  of 
water  from  the  head  of  the  gulf;  but  here  the  waters  divide,  and,  con 


FIRST.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  77 

trary  to  their  nature,  stand  up  on  each  side,  leaving  a  passage  for 
the  host  of  Israel. 

It  is  in  the  nature  of  clouds  to  be  carried  about  by  the  wind ;  but 
the  cloud  which  went  before  the  Israelites  in  the  wilderness,  rested  on 
their  tabernacle,  moved  when  they  were  commanded  to  march,  and 
directed  their  course  ;  rested  when  they  were  to  pitch  their  tents,  and 
was  a  pillar  of  direction  by  day ;  and,  by  night,  when  it  is  the  nature 
of  clouds  to  become  dark,  the  rays  of  the  sun  no  longer  permeating 
them,  this  cloud  shone  with  the  brightness  of  fire. 

In  all  these  cases,  if  the  facts  be  established,  there  can  be  no  doubt 
as  to  their  miraculous  character. 

"  Were  a  physician  instantly  to  give  sight  to  a  blind  man,  by  anoint- 
ing his  eyes  with  a  chemical  preparation,  to  the  nature  and  qualities 
of,  which  we  were  absolute  strangers,  the  cure  would  to  us,  undoubtedly, 
be  wonderful ;  but  we  could  not  pronounce  it  miraculous,  because  it 
might  be  the  physical  effect  of  the  operation  of  the  unguent  upon  the 
eye.  But  were  he  to  give  sight  to  his  patient,  merely  by  commanding 
him  to  receive  it,  or  by  anointing  his  eyes  with  spittle,  we  should,  with 
the  utmost  confidence,  pronounce  the  cure  to  be  a  miracle ;  because 
we  know  perfectly,  that  neither  the  human  voice  nor  human  spittle 
has,  by  the  established  constitution  of  things,  any  such  power  over  the 
diseases  of  the  eye.  No  one  is  ignorant,  that  •  persons,  apparently 
dead,  are  often  restored  to  their  families  and  friends,  by  being  treated, 
during  suspended  animation,  in  the  manner  recommended  by  the  Hu- 
mane Society.  To  the  vulgar,  and  sometimes  even  to  men  of  science, 
these  resuscitations  appear  very  wonderful ;  but  as  they  are  known  to 
be  effected  by  physical  agency,  they  cannot  be  considered  as  miracu- 
lous deviations  from  the  laws  of  nature.  On  the  other  hand,  no  one 
could  doubt  of  his  having  witnessed  a  real  miracle,  who  had  seen  a 
person,  that  had  been  four  days  dead,  come  alive  out  of  the  grave  at 
the  call  of  another,  or  who  had  even  beheld  a  person  exhibiting  all  the 
common  evidences  of  death,  instantly  resuscitated,  merely  by  being 
desired  to  live."  (Gleig's  edition  of  Stackhouse's  History  of  the  Bible, 
vol.  iii,  p.  241.) 

In  all  such  instances,  the  common  course  of  nature  is  sufficiently 
known  to  support  the  conclusion,  that  the  power  which  thus  interferes 
with,  and  controls  it,  and  produces  effects  to  which  the  visible,  natural 
causes  are  known  not  to  be  adequate,  is  God.  (9) 

(9)  It  is  observable,  that  no  miracles  appear  to  have  been  wrought  by  human 
agency  before  the  time  of  Moses  and  Aaron,  in  whose  days,  not  only  had  the 
world  long  existed,  but  consequently  the  course  of  nature  had  been  observed  for 
a  long  period  :  and  farther,  these  first  miracles  were  wrought  among  a  refined 
and  observant  people,  who  had  their  philosophers,  to  whom  the  course  of  nature, 
and  the  operation  of  physical  causes,  were  subjects  of  keen  investigation. 


78  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

But  it  is  also  necessary,  in  order  to  prove  that  even  these  miracu- 
lous events  are  authentications  of  a  Divine  mission,  that  a  direct  con- 
nection  between  the  power  of  God,  exerted  in  a  miraculous  act,  and 
the  messenger,  and  his  message,  should  be  established. 

The  following  circumstances  would  appear  sufficiently  to  establish 
such  a  connection  : — 1.  When  the  miracles  occur  at  the  time  when  he, 
who  professes  to  have  a  Divine  mission  from  God,  is  engaged  in  mak- 
ing known  the  will  of  God  to  mankind,  by  communicating  the  revela- 
tion he  has  received,  and  performing  other  acts  connected  with  his 
office.  2.  When,  though  they  are  works  above  human  power,  they  are 
wrought  by  the  messenger  himself,  or  follow  his  volitions.  The  force 
of  this  argument  may  be  thus  exhibited  : — 

When  such  unequivocal  miracles  as  those  we  have  pointed  out  occur 
only  in  connection  with  an  actual  profession  by  certain  persons,  that 
they  have  a  Divine  authority  to  teach  and  command  mankind,  this  is 
a  strong  presumption,  that  the  works  are  wrought  by  God  in  order  to 
authenticate  this  pretension ;  but  when  they  are  performed  mediately 
by  these  persons  themselves,  by  their  own  will,  and  for  the  express 
purpose  of  establishing  their  mission,  inasmuch  as  they  are  allowed  to 
be  real  miracles,  which  no  power,  but  that  of  God,  can  effect,"  it  is  then 
clear  that  God  is  with  them,  and  that  his  co-operation  is  an  authenti- 
cating and  visible  seal  upon  their  commission. 

It  is  not  necessary,  in  this  stage,  to  specify  the  rules  by  which  real 
and  pretended  miracles  are  to  be  distinguished ;  nor  to  inquire, 
whether  the  Scriptures  allow,  that,  in  some  cases,  miracles  have  been 
wrought  in  support  of  falsehood.  Both  these  subjects  will  be  examined 
when  we  come  to  speak  of  the  miracles  of  Scripture.  The  ground 
established  is,  that  miracles  are  possible  ;  and  that,  when  real  miracles 
occur  under  the  circumstances  we  have  mentioned,  they  are  satisfac- 
tory evidences  of  a  Divine  mission. 

But  though  this  should  be  allowed,  and  also  that  the  eye  witnesses  of 
such  miracles  would  be  bound  to  admit  the  proof,  it  has  been  made  a 
question,  whether  their  testimony  affords  sufficient  reason  to  others  to 
admit  the  fact  that  such  events  actually  took  place,  and  consequently 
whether  we  are  bound  to  acknowledge  the  authority  of  that  mission, 
in  attestation  of  which  the  miracles  are  said  to  have  been  wrought. 

If  this  be  admitted,  the  benefits  of  a  revelation  must  be  confined  to 
those  who  witnessed  its  attestation  by  miracle,  or  similar  attestations 
must  be  afforded  to  every  individual ;  for,  as  no  revelation  can  be  a 
benefit  unless  it  possess  Divine  authority,  which  alone  can  infallibly 
mark  the  distinction  between  truth  and  error,  should  the  authentication 
be  partial,  the  benefit  of  the  communication  of  an  infallible  doctrine 
must  also  be  partial.  We  are  all  so  much  interested  in  this,  because 
no  religious  system  can  plead  the  authentication  of  perpetual  miracle, 


FIRST.]  THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES.  79 

that  it  deserves  special  consideration.    Either  this  principle  is  unsound, 
or  we  must  abandon  all  hope  of  discovering  a  religion  of  Divine  authority. 

As  miracles  are  facts,  they,  like  other  facts,  may  be  reported  to 
others  ;  and,  as  in  the  case  of  the  miracles  in  question,  bearing  the  cha- 
racters which  have  been  described,  the  competency  of  any  man  of  ordi- 
nary understanding  to  determine  whether  they  were  actually  wrought 
cannot  be  doubted ;  if  the  witnesses  are  credible,  it  is  reasonable  that 
their  testimony  should  be  admitted  :  for  if  the  testimony  be  such  as,  in 
matters  of  the  greatest  moment  to  us  in  the  affairs  of  common  life,  we 
should  not  hesitate  to  act  upon  ;  if  it  be  such,  that,  in  the  most  import- 
ant affairs,  men  do  uniformly  act  upon  similar  or  even  weaker  testimony ; 
it  would  be  mere  perverseness  to  reject  it  in  the  case  in  question  ;  and 
would  argue  rather  a  disinclination  to  the  doctrine  which  is  thus  proved, 
than  any  rational  doubt  of  the  sufficiency  of  the  proof  itself. 

The  objection  is  put  in  its  strongest  form  by  Mr.  Hume,  in  his  Es- 
says, and  the  substance  of  it  is, — Experience  is  the  ground  of  the  cre- 
dit we  give  to  human  testimony ;  but  this  experience  is  by  no  means 
constant,  for  we  often  find  men  prevaricate  and  deceive.  On  the  other 
hand,  it  is  experience,  in  like  manner,  which  assures  us  of  those  laws  of 
nature,  in  the  violation  of  which  the  notion  of  a  miracle  consists  ;  but 
this  experience  is  constant  and  uniform.  A  miracle  is  an  event  which, 
from  its  nature,  is  inconsistent  with  our  experience  ;  but  the  falsehood 
of  testimony  is  not  inconsistent  with  experience  :  it  is  contrary  to  ex- 
perience that  miracles  should  be  true,  but  not  contrary  to  experience 
that  testimony  should  be  false  ;  and,  therefore,  no  human  testimony 
can,  in  any  case,  render  them  credible. 

This  argument  has  been  met  at  large  by  many  authors,  (1)  but  the 
following  extracts  afford  ample  refutation  : — 

"  The  principle  of  this  objection  is,  that  it  is  contrary  to  experience 
that  a  miracle  should  be  true  ;  but  not  contrary  to  experience  that 
testimony  should  be  false. 

"  Now  there  appears  a  small  ambiguity  in  the  term  « experience,' 
and  in  the  phrases  '  contrary  to  experience,'  or  '  contradicting  expe- 
rience,' which  it  may  be  necessary  to  remove  in  the  first  place.  Strictly 
speaking,  the  narrative  of  a  fact  is  then  only  contrary  to  experience, 
when  the  fact  is  related  to  have  existed  at  a  time  and  place ;  at  which 
time  and  place,  we,  being  present,  did  not  perceive  it  to  exist ;  as  if  it 
should  be  asserted  that,  iri  a  particular  room,  and  at  a  particular  hour 
of  a  certain  day,  a  man  was  raised  from  the  dead ;  in  which  room, 


(1)  See  Campbell's  Dissertation  on  Miracles  ;  Price's  Four  Dissertations, 
Diss.  4  ;  Paley's  Evidences ;  Adam's  Essay  on  Miracles ;  Bishop  Douglass's 
Criterion  ;  Dwight's  Theology,  vol.  ii ;  Dr.  Hey's  Norrisian  Lectures,  vol.  i , 
Van  Mildert's  Boyle's  Lectures,  vol.  i. 


SO  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  \PART 

and  at  the  time  specified,  we  being  present  and  looking  on,  perceived 
no  such  event  to  have  taken  place. 

"  Here  the  assertion  is  contrary  to  experience,  properly  so  called  ;  and 
this  is  a  contrariety  which  no  evidence  can  surmount.  It  matters 
vothing  whether  the  fact  be  of  a  miraculous  nature  or  not.  But  although 
this  be  the  experience  and  the  contrariety,  which  Archbishop  Tillotson 
alleged  in  the  quotation  with  which  Mr.  Hume  opens  his  Essay,  it  is 
certainly  not  that  experience,  nor  that  contrariety,  which  Mr.  Hume 
himself  intended  to  object.  And,  short  of  this,  I  know  no  intelligible 
signification  which  can  be  affixed  to  the  term  '  contrary  to  experience,' 
but  one,  viz.,  that  of  not  having  ourselves  experienced  any  thing  similar 
to  the  thing  related,  or  such  things  not  being  generally  experienced  by 
others.  I  say,  '  not  generally ;'  for  to  state,  concerning  the  fact  in 
question,  that  no  such  thing  was  ever  experienced,  or  that  universal  ex- 
perience  is  against  it,  is  to  assume  the  subject  of  the  controversy. 

"  Now  the  improbability  which  arises  from  the  want  (for  this  properly 
is  a  want,  not  a  contradiction,)  of  experience,  is  only  equal  to  the  pro- 
bability there  is,  that  if  the  thing  were  true,  we  should  experience  things 
similar  to  it,  or  that  such  things  would  be  generally  experienced.  Sup- 
pose  it  then  to  be  true,  that  miracles  were  wrought  upon  the  first  pro- 
mulgation of  Christianity,  when  nothing  but  miracles  could  decide  its 
authority,  is  it  certain  that  such  miracles  would  be  repeated  so  often, 
and  in  so  many  places,  as  to  become  objects  of  general  experience  1  Is 
it  a  probability  approaching  to  certainty  1  Is  it  a  probability  of  any 
great  strength  or  force  ?  Is  it  such  as  no  evidence  can  encounter  1  And 
yet  this  probability  is  the  exact  converse,  and  therefore  the  exact  mea- 
sure of  the  improbability  which  arises  from  the  want  of  experience, 
and  which  Mr.  Hume  represents  as  invincible  by  human  testimony. 

"  It  is  not  like  alleging  a  new  law  of  nature,  or  a  new  experiment 
in  natural  philosophy  ;  because,  when  these  are  related,  it  is  expected 
that,  under  the  same  circumstances,  the  same  effect  will  follow  uni- 
versally ;  and  in  proportion  as  this  expectation  is  justly  entertained, 
the  want  of  a  corresponding  experience  negatives  the  history.  But  to 
expect  concerning  a  miracle,  that  it  should  succeed  upon  a  repetition, 
is  to  expect  that  which  would  make  it  cease  to  be  a  miracle,  which  is 
contrary  to  its  nature  as  such,  and  would  totally  destroy  the  use  and 
purpose  for  which  it  was  wrought. 

"  The  force  of  experience,  as  an  objection  to  miracles,  is  founded  in 
the  presumption,  either  that  the  course  of  nature  is  invariable,  or  that, 
if  it  be  ever  varied,  variations  will  be  frequent  and  general.  Has  the 
necessity  of  this  alternative  been  demonstrated  ?  Permit  us  to  call  the 
course  of  nature  the  agency  of  an  intelligent  Being  ;  and  is  there  any 
good  reason  for  judging  this  state  of  the  case  to  be  probable  ?  Ought 
we  not  rather  to  expect,  that  such  a  Being,  on  occasions  of  peculiar 


FIRST.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  81 

importance,  may  interrupt  the  order  which  he  had  appointed,  yet,  that 
such  occasions  should  return  seldom ;  that  these  interruptions,  conse- 
quently, should  be  confined  to  the  experience  of  a  few  ;  that  the  want 
of  it,  therefore,  in  many,  should  be  matter  neither  of  surprise  nor 
objection  ? 

"  But  as  a  continuation  of  the  argument  from  experience,  it  is  said, 
that  when  we  advance  accounts  of  miracles,  we  assign  effects  without 
causes,  or  we  attribute  effects  to  causes  inadequate  to  the  purpose,  or 
to  causes,  of  the  operation  of  which  we  have  no  experience.  Of  what 
causes,  we  may  ask,  and  of  what  effects  does  the  objection  speak?  If 
it  be  answered,  that  when  we  ascribe  the  cure  of  the  palsy  to  a  touch, 
of  blindness  to  the  anointing  of  the  eyes  with  clay,  or  the  raising  of  the 
dead  to  a  word,  we  lay  ourselves  open  to  this  imputation  ;  we  reply, 
that  we  ascribe  no  such  effects  to  such  causes.  We  perceive  no  virtue 
or  energy  in  these  things  more  than  in  other  things  of  the  same  kind. 
They  are  merely  signs,  to  connect  the  miracle  with  its  end.  The  effect 
we  ascribe  simply  to  the  volition  of  the  Deity  ;  of  whose  existence  and 
power,  not  to  say  of  whose  presence  and  agency,  we  have  previous  and 
independent  proof.  We  have,  therefore,  all  we  seek  for  in  the  works 
of  rational  agents — a  sufficient  power,  and  an  adequate  motive.  In  a 
word,  once  believe  that  there  is  a  God,  and  miracles  are  not  incredible ! 

u  Mr.  Hume  states  the  case  of  miracles  to  be,  a  contest  of  opposite 
improbabilities  ;  that  is  to  say,  a  question  whether  it  be  more  improbable 
that  the  miracle  should  be  true,  or  the  testimony  false  ;  and  this  I  think 
a  fair  account  of  the  controversy.  But  herein  I  remark  a  want  of 
argumentative  justice,  that,  in  describing  the  improbability  of  miracles, 
he  suppresses  all  those  circumstances  of  extenuation,  which  result  from 
our  knowledge  of  the  existence,  power,  and  disposition  of  the  Deity  ; 
his  concern  in  the  creation ;  the  end  answered  by  the  miracle  ;  the 
importance  of  that  end,  and  its  subserviency  to  the  plan  pursued  in  the 
works  of  nature.  As  Mr.  Hume  has  represented  the  question,  miracles 
are  alike  incredible  to  him  who  is  previously  assured  of  the  constant 
agency  of  a  Divine  Being,  and  to  him  who  believes  that  no  such  Being 
exists  in  the  universe.  They  are  equally  incredible,  whether  related  to 
have  been  wrought  upon  occasions  the  most  deserving,  and  for  purposes 
the  most  beneficial,  or  for  no  assignable  end  whatever,  or  for  an  end 
confessedly  trifling  or  pernicious.  This  surely  cannot  be  a  correct 
statement.  In  adjusting  also  the  other  side  of  the  balance,  the  strength 
and  weight  of  testimony,  this  author  has  provided  an  answer  to  every 
possible  accumulation  of  historical  proof,  by  telling  us  that  we  are  not 
obliged- to  explain  how  the  story  or  the  evidence  arose.  Now  I  think 
that  we  are  obliged  ;  not,  perhaps,  to  show  by  positive  accounts  how 
it  did,  but  by  a  probable  hypothesis  how  it  might  so  happen.  The  ex- 
istence  of  the  testimony  is  a  phenomenon  ;  the  truth  of  the  fact  solves 

Vol.  I.  6 


82  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

the  phenomenon.  If  we  reject  this  solution,  we  ought  to  have  some 
other  to  rest  in ;  and  none,  even  by  our  adversaries,  can  be  admitted, 
which  is  not  consistent  with  the  principles  that  regulate  human  affairs 
and  human  conduct  at  present,  or  which  makes  men  then  to  have  been 
a  different  kind  of  beings  from  what  they  are  now. 

"  But  the  short  consideration  which,  independently  of  every  other, 
convinces  me  that  there  is  no  solid  foundation  for  Mr.  Hume's  con. 
elusion,  is  the  following  : — When  a  theorem  is  proposed  to  a  mathe- 
matician, the  first  thing  he  does  with  it  is  to  try  it  upon  a  simple  case ; 
and  if  it  produce  a  false  result,  he  is  sure  that  there  is  some  mistake 
in  the  demonstration.  Now,  to  proceed  in  this  way  with  what  may 
be  called  Mr.  Hume's  theorem, — If  twelve  men,  whose  probity  and 
good  sense  I  had  long  known,  should  seriously  and  circumstantially 
relate  to  me  an  account  of  a  miracle  wrought  before  their  eyes,  and 
in  which  it  was  impossible  that  they  should  be  deceived :  if  the  go- 
vernor  of  the  country,  hearing  a  rumour  of  this  account,  should  call 
these  men  into  his  presence,  and  offer  them  a  short  proposal,  either 
to  confess  the  imposture,  or  submit  to  be  tied  up  to  a  gibbet ;  if  they 
should  refuse  with  one  voice  to  acknowledge  that  there  existed  any 
falsehood  or  imposture  in  the  case ;  if  this  threat  were  communicated 
to  them  separately,  yet  with  no  different  effect ;  if  it  was  at  last  exe- 
cuted ;  if  I  myself  saw  them,  one  after  another,  consenting  to  be  rack- 
ed, burned,  or  strangled,  rather  than  give  up  the  truth  of  their  account; 
still,  if  Mr.  Hume's  rule  be  my  guide,  I  am  not  to  believe  them.  Now 
I  undertake  to  say,  that  there  exists  not  a  skeptic  in  the  world  who 
would  not  believe  them,  or  who  would  defend  such  incredulity." — 
(Paley's  Evidences,  Preparatory  Considerations.) 

"  The  essayist,"  says  the  bishop  of  LlandafF,  "  who  has  most  elabo- 
rately  drawn  out  this  argument,  perplexes  the  subject,  by  attempting  to 
adjust,  in  a  sort  of  metaphysical  balance  of  his  own  invention,  the 
degrees  of  probability  resulting  from  what  he  is  pleased  to  call  opposite 
experiences ;  viz.  the  experience  of  men's  veracity,  on  the  one  hand, 
and  the  experience  of  the  firm  and  unalterable  constitution  of  the  laws 
of  nature,  on  the  other.  But  the  fallacy  in  this  mode  of  reasoning  is 
obvious.  For,  in  the  first  place,  miracles  can,  at  most,  only  be  contrary 
to  the  experience  of  those  who  never  saw  them  performed  :  to  say, 
therefore,  that  they  are  contrary  to  general  experience,  (including,  as  it 
should  seem,  the  experience  even  of  those  who  profess  to  have  seen  and 
to  have  examined  them,)  is  to  assume  the  very  point  in  question.  And,  in 
the  next  place,  it  is  equally  fallacious  to  allege  against  them  the  expe- 
rience of  the  unalterable  constitution  of  the  laws  of  nature  ;  because, 
unless  the  fact  be  previously  investigated,  whether  those  laws  have  ever 
been  altered  or  suspended,  this  is  likewise  a  gratuitous  assumption. 

"  In  truth  this  boasted  balance  of  probabilities  could  only  be  employed 


FIRST.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  83 

with  effect,  in  the  cause  of  infidelity,  by  counterpoising,  against  the 
testimony  of  those  who  professed  to  have  seen  miracles,  the  testimony 
of  those  (if  any  such  were  to  be  found)  who,  under  the  circumstances, 
and  with  the  same  opportunities  of  forming  a  judgment,  professed  to 
have  been  convinced,  that  the  things  which  they  saw  were  not  mira- 
cles, but  mere  impostures  and  delusions.  Here  would  be  indeed  expe- 
rience against  experience :  and  a  skeptic  might  be  well  employed  in 
estimating  the  comparative  weight  of  the  testimony  on  either  side  ;  in 
order  to  judge  of  the  credibility  or  incredibility  of  the  things  proposed 
to  his  belief.  But  when  he  weighs  only  the  experience  of  those,  to 
whom  the  opportunity  of  judging  of  a  miracle  by  personal  observation 
lias  never  been  afforded,  against  the  experience  of  those  who  declare 
themselves  to  be  eye  witnesses  of  the  fact ;  instead  of  opposite  expe- 
riences, properly  so  called,  he  is  only  balancing  total  inexperience  on 
the  one  hand,  against  positive  experience  on  the  other. 

"  Nor  will  it  avail  any  thing  to  say,  that  this  particular  inexperience 
of  those  who  have  never  seen  miracles,  is  compensated  by  their  general 
experience  of  the  unalterable  course  of  nature.  For,  as  we  have  already 
observed,  this  is  altogether  a  mere  petitio  principii.  It  is  arguing,  upon 
a  supposition  wholly  incapable  of  proof,  that  the  course  of  nature  is 
indeed  so  unalterably  fixed,  that  even  God  himself,  by  whom  its  laws 
were  ordained,  cannot,  when  he  sees  fit,  suspend  their  operation. 

"  There  is  therefore  a  palpable  fallacy,  (however  a  subtle  metaphy- 
sician may  attempt  to  disguise  it  by  ingenious  sophistry,)  in  repre- 
senting the  experience  of  mankind  as  being  opposite  to  the  testimony 
on  which  our  belief  of  miracles  is  founded.  For,  the  opposite  expe- 
riences, as  they  are  called,  are  not  contradictory  to  each  other ;  since 
'  there  is'  (as  has  been  justly  observed)  •  no  inconsistency  in  believing 
them  both.''  A  miracle  necessarily  supposes  an  established  and  gene- 
ally  unaltered  (though  not  unalterable)  course  of  things ;  for,  in  its 
nterception  of  such  a  course  lies  the  very  essence  of  a  miracle,  as 
here  understood.  Our  experience,  therefore,  of  the  course  of  nature 
leads  us  to  expect  its  continuance,  and  to  act  accordingly  ;  but  it  does 
not  set  aside  any  proofs,  from  valid  testimony,  of  a  deviation  from  it : 
neither  can  our  being  personally  unacquainted  with  a  matter  of  fact, 
which  took  place  a  thousand  years  ago,  or  in  a  distant  part  of  the 
world,  warrant  us  in  disbelieving  the  testimony  of  personal  witnesses 
of  the  fact.  Common  sense  revolts  at  the  absurdity  of  considering  one 
man's  ignorance  or  inexperience  as  a  counterpoise  to  another  man's 
knowledge  and  experience  of  a  matter  of  fact.  Yet  on  no  better  foun- 
dation does  this  favourite  argument  of  infidels  appear  to  rest." 

The  substance  of  Dr.  Campbell's  answer  to  Mr.  Hume's  argument 
has  been  thus  given  : — 

"  The  evidence  arising  from  human  testimony  is  not  solely  derived 


84  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

from  experience :  on  the  contrary,  testimony  has  a  natural  influence 
on  belief,  antecedent  to  experience.  The  early  and  unlimited  assent 
given  to  testimony  by  children,  gradually  contracts  as  they  advance  in 
life  ;  it  is  therefore  more  consonant  to  truth  to  say,  that  our  diffidence 
in  testimony  is  the  result  of  experience,  than  that  our  faith  in  it  has 
this  foundation.  Beside,  the  uniformity  of  experience  in  favour  of  any 
fact  is  not  a  proof  against  its  being  reversed  in  a  particular  instance. 
The  evidence  arising  from  the  single  testimony  of  a  man  of  known 
veracity,  will  go  farther  to  establish  a  belief  of  its  being  actually  re- 
versed. If  his  testimony  be  confirmed  by  a  few  others  of  the  same 
character,  we  cannot  withhold  our  assent  to  the  truth  of  it.  Now, 
though  the  operations  of  nature  are  governed  by  uniform  laws,  and 
though  we  have  not  the  testimony  of  our  senses  in  favour  of  any  vio- 
lation of  them  ;  still,  if  in  particular  instances  we  have  the  testimony 
of  thousands  of  our  fellow  creatures,  and  those,  too,  men  of  strict  in. 
tegrity,  swayed  by  no  motives  of  ambition  or  interest,  and  governed  by 
the  principles  of  common  sense,  that  they  were  actually  witnesses  of  these 
violations,  the  constitution  of  our  nature  obliges  us  to  believe  them. 

"  Mr.  Hume's  reasoning  is  founded  upon  too  limited  a  view  of  the 
laws  and  course  of  nature.  If  we  consider  things  duly,  we  shall  find 
that  lifeless  matter  is  utterly  incapable  of  obeying  any  laws,  or  of  being 
endued  with  any  powers  ;  and,  therefore,  what  is  usually  called  the 
course  of  nature,  can  be  nothing  else  than  the  arbitrary  will  and  pleasure 
of  God,  acting  continually  upon  matter  according  to  certain  rules  of 
uniformity,  still  bearing  a  relation  to  contingencies.  So  that  it  is  as  easy 
for  the  Supreme  Being  to  alter  what  men  think  the  course  of  nature,  as  to 
preserve  it.  Those  effects,  which  are  produced  on  the  world  regularly 
and  indesinently,  and  which  are  usually  termed  the  works  of  nature, 
prove  the  constant  providence  of  the  Deity  ;  those,  on  the  contrary-, 
which,  upon  any  extraordinary  occasion,  are  produced  in  such  a  man- 
ner as  it  is  manifest  could  not  have  been  either  by  human  power,  or  by 
what  is  called  chance,  prove  undeniably  the  immediate  interposition  of 
the  Deity  on  that  especial  occasion.  God,  it  must  be  recollected,  is  the 
Governor  of  the  moral  as  well  as  of  the  physical  world  ;  and  since  the 
moral  well  being  of  the  universe  is  of  more  consequence  than  its  physi- 
cal order  and  regularity,  it  follows  obviously,  that  the  laws,  conformably 
with  which  the  material  world  seems  generally  to  be  regulated,  are  sub- 
servient and  may  occasionally  yield  to  the  laws  by  which  the  moral 
world  is  governed.  Although,  therefore,  a  miracle  is  contrary  to  the 
usual  course  of  nature,  (and  would  indeed  lose  its  beneficial  effect  if  it 
were  not  so,)  it  cannot  thence  be  inferred,  that  it  is  'a  violation  of  the 
laws  of  nature,'  allowing  the  term  to  include  a  regard  to  moral  tenden- 
cies. The  laws  by  which  a  wise  and  holy  God  governs  the  world, 
cannot  (unless  he  is  pleased  to  reveal  them)  be  learnt  in  any  other  way 


FIRST.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  85 

than  from  testimony  ;  since,  on  this  supposition,  nothing  but  testimony 
can  bring  us  acquainted  with  the  whole  series  of  his  dispensations  ;  and 
this  kind  of  knowledge  is  absolutely  necessary  previously  to  our  cor- 
rectly inferring  those  laws.  Testimony,  therefore,  must  be  admitted  as 
constituting  the  principal  means  of  discovering  the  real  laws  by  which 
the  universe  has  been  regujated ;  that  testimony  assures  us,  that  the 
apparent  course  of  nature  has  often  been  interrupted  to  produce  impor- 
tant moral  effects ;  and  we  must  not  at  random  disregard  such  testimony, 
because  in  estimating  its  credibility  we  ought  to  look  almost  infinitely 
more  at  the  moral  than  at  the  physical  circumstances  connected  with 
any  particular  event."  (2) 

Such  evidence  as  that  of  miracles,  transmitted  to  distant  times  by 
satisfactory  testimony,  a  revelation  may  then  receive.  The  fitness  of 
this  kind  of  evidence  to  render  that  revelation  an  instant  and  universal 
benefit,  wherever  it  comes,  is  equally  apparent ;  for,  as  Mr.  Locke 
observes,  (Reasonableness  of  Christianity,)  "  the  bulk  of  mankind  have 
not  leisure  nor  capacity  for  demonstration,  nor  can  they  carry  a  train  of 
proofs ;  but  as  to  the  Worker  of  miracles,  all  his  commands  become 

(2)  It  would  bo  singular,  did  we  not  know  the  inconsistencies  of  error,  that 
Mr.  Hume  himself,  as  Dr.  Campbell  shows,  gives  up  his  own  argument. 

"  I  own,"  these  are  his  words,  "  there  may  possibly  be  miracles,  or  violations 
of  the  usual  course  of  nature,  of  such  a  kind  as  to  admit  a  proof  from  human  tes- 
timony, though  perhaps  [in  this  he  is  modest  enough,  he  avers  nothing ;  perhaps] 
it  will  be  impossible  to  find  any  such  in  all  the  records  of  history."  To  this 
doclaration  he  subjoins  the  following  supposition  • — "  Suppose  all  authors,  in  all 
languages,  agree  that  from  the  first  of  January,  1600,  there  was  a  total  darkness 
over  the  whole  earth  for  eight  days  ;  suppose  that  the  tradition  of  this  extraor- 
dinary event  is  still  strong  and  lively  among  the  people  ;  that  all  travellers  who 
return  from  foreign  countries,  bring  us  accounts  of  the  same  traditions,  without 
the  least  variation  or  contradiction  :  it  is  evident  that  our  present  philosophers, 
instead  of  doubting  of  that  fact,  ought,  to  receive  it  for  certain,  and  ought  to 
search  for  the  causes  whence  it  might  be  derived."  Could  one  imagine  that  the 
person  who  had  made  the  above  acknowledgment,  a  person  too  who  is  justly 
allowed  by  all  who  are  acquainted  with  his  writings,  to  possess  uncommon 
penetration  and  philosophical  abilities,  that  this  were  the  same  individual  who 
had  so  short  a  while  before  affirmed,  that  "  a  miracle,"  or  a  violation  of  the  courso 
of  nature,  "  supported  by  any  human  testimony,  is  more  properly  a  subject  of 
durision  than  of  argument." 

The  objection  "  that  successive  testimony  diminishes,  and  that  so  rapidly  as  to 
command  no  assent  after  a  few  centuries  at  most,"  deserves  not  so  full  a  refuta- 
tion, since  it  is  evident,  that  "testimony  continues  credible  so  long  as  it  is 
transmitted  with  all  those  circumstances  and  conditions  which  first  procured  it 
a  certain  degree  of  merit  among  men.  Who  complains  of  a  decay  of  evidence  in 
relation  to  the  actions  of  Alexander,  Hannibal,  Pompey,  or  Ceesar  ?  We  never 
hear  persous  wishing  they  had  lived  ages  earlier,  that  they  might  have  had  bet- 
ter proof  that  Cyrus  was  the  conqueror  of  Babylon  ;  that  Darius  was  beaten  in 
several  battles  by  Alexander,"  &c.  (See  Dr.  O.  Gregory's  Letters  on  the  Chris- 
tian Revelation,  vol.  i,  p.  196.) 


86  THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES.  [PART 

principles ;  there  needs  no  other  proof  of  what  he  says,  but  that  he 
said  it,  and  there  needs  no  more  than  to  read  the  inspired  books  to  be 
instructed." 

Having  thus  shown,  that  miracles  are  possible ;  that  under  certain 
circumstances  their  reality  may  be  ascertained ;  that  when  accompa- 
nied by  other  circumstances  which  we  have  also  mentioned,  they  are 
connected  with  a  definite  end,  and  connect  themselves  with  the  Divine 
mission  of  those  who  perform  them,  and  with  the  truth  of  their  doctrine ; 
that  as  facts  they  are  the  subjects  of  human  testimony,  and  that  credi- 
ble testimony  respecting  them  lays  a  competent  foundation  for  our 
belief  in  them,  and  in  those  revelations  which  they  are  clearly  designed 
to  attest, — the  way  is  prepared  for  the  consideration  of  the  miracles 
recorded  in  Scripture. 

Pkophecy  is  the  other  great  branch  of  the  external  evidence  of  a 
revelation  ;  and  the  nature  and  force  of  that  kind  of  evidence  may  fitly 
be  pointed  out  before  either  the  miracles  or  prophecies  of  the  Bible  are 
examined  :  for  by  ascertaining  the  general  principles  on  which  this  kind 
of  evidence  rests,  the  consideration  of  particular  cases  will  be  rendered 
more  easy  and  satisfactory. 

No  argument  a  priori  against  the  possibility  of  prophecy  can  be 
attempted  by  any  one  who  believes  in  the  existence  and  infinitely  perfect 
nature  of  God. 

The  infidel  author  of  "  The  Moral  Philosopher,"  indeed,  rather  insi- 
nuates than  attempts  fully  to  establish  a  dilemma  with  which  to  perplex 
those  who  regard  prophecy  as  one  of  the  proofs  of  a  Divine  revela- 
tion. He  thinks  that  either  prophecy  must  respect  "events  necessary, 
as  depending  upon  necessary  causes,  which  might  be  certainly  fore- 
known and  predicted ;"  or  that,  if  human  actions  are  free,  and  effects 
contingent,  the  possibility  of  prophecy  must  be  given  up,  as  it  implies 
foreknowledge,  which,  if  granted,  would  render  them  necessary. 

The  first  part  of  this  objection  would  be  allowed,  were  there  no-  pre- 
dictions to  be  adduced  in  favour  of  a  professed  revelation,  except  such  as 
related  to  events  which  human  experience  has  taught  to  be  dependent 
upon  some  cause,  the  existence  and  necessary  operation  of  which  are 
within  the  compass  of  human  knowledge.  But  to  foretell  such  events 
would  not  be  to  prophesy,  any  more  than  to  say,  that  it  will  be  light  to- 
morrow at  noon,  or  that  on  a  certain  day  and  hour  next  year  there  will 
occur  an  eclipse  of  the  sun  or  moon,  when  that  event  has  been  pre- 
viously ascertained  by  astronomical  calculation. 

If,  however,  it  were  allowed,  that  all  events  depended  upon  a  chain 
of  necessary  causes,  yet,  in  a  variety  of  instances,  the  argument  from 
prophecy  would  not  be  at  all  affected  ;  for  the  foretelling  of  necessary 
results  in  certain  circumstances  is  beyond  human  intelligence,  because 
they  can  only  be  known  to  Him  by  whose  power  those  necessary 


FIRST.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  87 

causes  on  which  they  depend  have  been  arranged,  and  who  has  pre- 
scribed the  times  of  their  operation.  To  borrow  a  case,  for  the  sake 
of  illustration,  from  the  Scriptures,  though  the  claims  of  their  predictions 
are  not  now  in  question ;  let  us  allow  that  such  a  prophecy  as  that  of 
Isaiah  respecting  the  taking  of  Babylon  by  Cyrus  was  uttered,  as  it 
purports  to  be,  more  than  a  century  before  Cyrus  was  born,  and  that  all 
the  actions  of  Cyrus  and  his  army,  and  those  of  the  Babylonian  monarch 
and  his  people,  were  necessitated ;  is  it  to  be  maintained  that  the 
chain  of  necessitating  causes  running  through  more  than  a  century 
could  be  traced  by  a  human  mind,  so  as  to  describe  the  precise  manner 
in  which  that  fatality  would  unfold  itself,  even  to  the  turning  of  the 
river,  the  drunken  carousal  of  the  inhabitants,  and  the  neglect  of  shut- 
ting the  gates  of  the  city  ?  This,  being  by  uniform  and  universal  expe- 
rience known  to  be  above  all  human  apprehension,  would  therefore 
prove  that  the  prediction  was  made  in  consequence  of  a  communi- 
cation from  a  superior  and  Divine  Intelligence.  Were  events  therefore 
subjected  to  invincible  fate  and  necessity,  there  might  nevertheless  be 
prophecy. 

The  other  branch  of  the  dilemma  is  founded  on  the  notion,  that  if  we 
allow  the  moral  freedom  of  human  actions,  prophecy  is  impossible, 
because  certain  foreknowledge  is  contrary  to  that  freedom,  and  fixes 
and  renders  the  event  necessary. 

To  this  the  reply  is,  that  the  objection  is  founded  on  a  false  assumption, 
the  Divine  foreknowledge  having  no  more  influence  in  effectuating,  or 
making  certain  any  event,  than  human  foreknowledge  in  the  degree  in 
which  it  may  exist ;  there  being  no  moral  causality  at  all  in  knowledge. 
This  lies  in  the  will,  which  is  the  determining,  acting  principle  in  every 
agent ;  or,  as  Dr.  Samuel  Clarke  has  expressed  it  in  answer  to  another 
kind  of  objector,  "God's  infallible  judgment  concerning  contingent 
truths  does  no  more  alter  the  nature  of  the  things  and  cause  them  to  be 
necessary,  than  our  judging  right  at  any  time  concerning  a  contingent 
truth,  makes  it  cease  to  be  contingent ;  or  than  our  science  of  a  present 
truth  is  any  cause  of  its  being  either  true  or  present.  Here,  therefore, 
lies  the  fallacy  of  our  author's  argument.  Because  from  God's  fore- 
knowing the  existence  of  things  depending  upon  a  chain  of  necessary 
causes,  it  follows,  that  the  existence  of  the  things  must  needs  be  ne- 
cessary ;  therefore  from  God's  judging  infallibly  concerning  things 
which  depend  not  on  necessary  but  free  causes,  he  concludes  that  these 
things  also  depend  not  uponyVee  but  necessary  causes.  Contrary,  I  say, 
to  the  supposition  in  the  argument,  for  it  must  not  be  first  supposed,  that 
things  are  in  their  own  nature  necessary ;  but  from  the  power  of  judging 
infallibly  concerning  free  events,  it  must  be  proved  that  things,  otherwise 
supposedyVee,  will  thereby  unavoidably  become  necessary."  The  whole 
question  lies  in  this,  Is  the  simple  knowledge  of  an  action  a  necessitating 


88  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

cause  of  the  action?  And  the  answer  must  be  in  the  negative,  as 
every  man's  consciousness  will  assure  him.  If  the  causality  of  influence, 
either  immediate,  or  by  the  arrangement  of  compelling  events,  be  mixed 
up  with  this,  the  ground  is  shifted  ;  and  it  is  no  longer  a  question  which 
respects  simple  prescience. 

This  metaphysical  objection  having  no  foundation  in  truth,  the  force 
of  the  evidence  arising  from  predictions  of  events,  distant,  and  out  of 
the  power  of  human  sagacity  to  anticipate,  and  uttered  as  authentica- 
tions of  a  Divine  commission,  is  apparent.  "  Such  predictions,  whether 
in  the. form  of  declaration,  description,  or  representation  of  things  fu- 
ture," as  Mr.  Boyle  justly  observes,  "  are  supernatural  things,  and  may 
properly  be  ranked  among  miracles."  (Boyle's  Christian  Virtuoso.) 
For  when,  for  instance,  the  events  are  distant  many  years  or  ages  from 
the  uttering  of  the  prediction  itself,  depending  on  causes  not  so  much 
as  existing  when  the  prophecy  was  spoken  and  recorded,  and  likewise 
upon  various  circumstances  and  a  long  arbitrary  series  of  things,  and  the 
fluctuating  uncertainties  of  human  volitions,  and  especially  when  they 
iepend  not  at  all  upon  any  external  circumstances,  nor  upon  any  cre- 
ated being,  but  arise  merely  from  the  counsels  and  appointment  of  God 
himself, — such  events  can  be  foreknown  only  by  that  Being,  one  of 
whose  attributes  is  omniscience,  and  can  be  foretold  by  him  only  to 
whom  the  "  Father  of  lights"  shall  reveal  them :  so  that  whoever  is 
manifestly  endued  with  that  predictive  power,  must,  in  that  instance, 
speak  and  act  by  Divine  inspiration,  and  what  he  pronounces  of  that 
kind  must  be  received  as  the  word  of  God,  nothing  more  being  neces- 
sary to  assure  us  of  this,  than  credible  testimony  that  such  predictions 
were  uttered  before  the  event,  or  conclusive  evidence  that  the  records 
which  contain  them  are  of  the  antiquity  to  which  they  pretend.  (Vide 
Chapman's  Eusebius,  p.  158 ;  Cudworth's  Intellect.  Syst.  p.  866 ; 
Vitringa  in  Isa.  cap.  41.) 


CHAPTER  X. 

The  Evidences  necessary  to  authenticate  a  Revelation. — In- 
ternal Evidence. — Collateral  Evidence. 

The  second  kind  of  evidence,  usually  considered  as  necessary  for 
the  attestation  of  a  Divine  revelation,  is  called  internal  evidence. 

This  kind  of  evidence  has  been  already  described  to  be  that  which 
arises  from  the  consideration  of  the  doctrines  taught,  as  being  consist- 
ent with  the  character  of  God,  and  tending  to  promote  the  virtue  and 
happiness  of  man,  the  ends  for  which  a  revelation  of  the  will  of  God 
was  needed,  and  for  which  it  must  have  been  given,  if  it  be  considered 
as  an  act  of  grace  and  mercy. 


FIRST.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  89 

This  subject,  like  the  two  branches  of  the  external  evidence,  miracles 
and  prophecy,  involves  important  general  principles  ;  and  it  may  require 
to  be  the  more  carefully  considered,  as  opinions  have  run  into  extremes. 
By  some  it  has  been  doubted,  whether  what  is  called  "  the  internal  evi- 
dence," that  is,  the  excellence  of  the  doctrines  and  tendency  of  a  reve- 
lation, ought  to  be  ranked  with  the  leading  evidence  of  miracles  and 
prophecy,  seeing  that  the  proof  from  miracles  and  from  prophecy  is 
decisive  and  absolute.  For  the  same  reason,  however,  prophecy  might 
be  excluded  from  the  rank  of  leading  evidence,  inasmuch  as  miracles 
of  themselves  are,  in  their  evidence,  decisive  and  absolute.  If,  however, 
it  were  contended,  that  proofs  from  miracles,  prophecy,  and  internal 
evidence,  are  jointly  necessary  to  constitute  sufficient  proof  of  the  truth 
of  a  revelation,  there  would  be  reason  to  dispute  the  position,  under- 
standing by  "  sufficient  evidence"  that  degree  of  proof  which  would 
render  it  highly  unreasonable,  perverse,  and  culpable,  in  any  one  to 
reject  the  authority  of  the  revelation.  This  evidence  is  afforded  by 
miracles  alone  ;  for  if  there  be  any  force  at  all  in  the  argument  from 
miracles,  it  goes  to  the  full  length  of  rational  proof  of  a  Divine  attesta- 
tion, and  that  both  to  him  who  personally  witnesses  the  performance  of 
a  real  miracle,  and  to  whom  it  is  credibly  testified ;  and  nothing 
more  is  absolutely  necessary  to  enforce  a  rational  conviction.  But  if  it 
should  please  the  Divine  Author  of  a  revelation  to  superadd  the  farther 
evidence  of  prophecy,  and  also  that  of  the  obvious  truth,  and  beneficial 
tendency,  of  many  parts  of  this  revelation,  circumstances  which  must 
necessarily  be  often  apparent,  it  ought  not  to  be  disregarded  in  the  argu- 
ment in  its  favour,  nor  thought  of  trifling  import ;  since  though  it  may  not 
be  necessary  to  establish  a  rational  and  sufficient  proof,  it  may  have  a 
secondary  necessity,  to  arouse  attention,  to  leave  objectors  more  obvi- 
ously without  excuse,  and  also  to  accommodate  the  revelation  to  that 
variety  which  exists  in  the  mental  constitutions  of  men,  one  mind  being 
excited  to  attention,  and  disposed  to  conviction,  more  forcibly  by  one 
species  of  proof  than  by  another. 

In  strict  propriety,  therefore,  miracles  may  be  considered  as  the  pri. 
mary  evidence  of  the  truth  of  a  revelation,  and  every  other  species  of 
proof  as  confirmatory.  Prophecy  and  the  internal  evidence  are  leading 
evidences,  but  neither  of  them  stand  in  the  foremost  place.'  The  same 
abundance  of  proof  we  perceive  in  nature,  for  the  demonstration  of  the 
being  and  attributes  of  God.  Proofs  of  the  existence  of  a  First  Cause, 
almighty  and  infinitely  wise,  more  than  what  is  logically  sufficient,  sur- 
round us  every  where  ;  but  who  can  doubt,  that  if  half  the  instances  of 
infinite  power  and  wisdom  which  are  seen  in  the  material  universe  were 
annihilated  there  would  not  be  sufficient  evidence  to  demonstrate  both 
these,  as  perfections  of  the  Maker  of  the  universe  ? 

On  the  other  hand,  the  proof  drawn  from  the  internal  evidence  by 


90  THEOLOGICAL   INSTITUTES.  [PART 

others  has  been  placed  first  in  order,  and  the  force  of  the  evidence  from 
miracles  and  prophecy  is  by  them  made  to  depend  upon  the  excellence 
of  the  doctrine  which  they  are  brought  forward  to  confirm,  and  which 
ought  first  to  be  ascertained.  Nothing,  say  they,  is  to  be  received  as 
a  revelation  from  God  which  does  not  contain  doctrines  worthy  of  the 
Divine  character,  and  tending  to  promote  the  good  of  mankind. — "  A 
necessary  mark  of  a  religion  coming  from  God  is,  that  the  duties  it  en- 
joins are  all  such  as  are  agreeable  to  our  natural  notions  of  God,  and 
perfective  of  the  nature,  and  conducive  to  the  happiness  of  man.''  (Dr. 
S.  Clarke.) 

Now,  though  it  must  be  instantly  granted,  that  in  a  revelation  from 
God,  there  will  be  nothing  contrary  to  his  own  character  ;  and  that, 
when  it  is  made  in  the  way  of  a  merciful  dispensation,  it  will  contain 
nothing  but  what  tends  to  perfect  the  nature,  and  promote  the  happi- 
ness of  his  creatures  ;  it  is  clear,  that  to  try  a  professed  revelation  by 
our  own  notions,  as  to  what  is  worthy  of  God  and  beneficial  to  man- 
kind, is  to  assume,  that,  independent  of  a  revelation,  we  know  what  God 
is,  or  we  cannot  say  what  is  worthy  or  unworthy  of  him  ;  and  that  we 
know,  too,  the  character,  and  relations,  and  wants  of  man  so  perfectly 
as  to  determine  what  is  beneficial  to  him  ;  in  other  words,  this  sup- 
poses that  we  are  in  circumstances  not  greatly  to  need  supernatural 
instruction. 

Another  objection  to  the  internal  evidence  being  made  the  primary 
test  of  a  revelation  is,  that  it  renders  the  external  testimony  nugatory, 
or  comparatively  unimportant.  "  Surely,"  observes  a  late  ingenious 
writer,  "  in  a  system  which  purports  to  be  a  revelation  from  heaven, 
and  to  contain  a  history  of  God's  dealings  with  men,  and  to  develope 
truths  with  regard  to  the  moral  government  of  the  universe,  the 
knowledge  and  belief  of  which  will  lead  to  happiness  here  and  here- 
after, we  may  expect  to  find  (if  its  pretensions  are  well  founded)  an  evi- 
dence for  its  truth,  which  shall  be  independent  of  all  external  testimony." 
(Erskine  on  the  Internal  Evidence,  &c.)  If  this  be  true,  the  utility 
of  the  evidence  of  miracles  is  rendered  very  questionable.  It  is  either 
unnecessary,  or  it  is  subordinate  and  dependent ;  neither  of  which,  by 
Christian  divines  at  least,  can  be  consistently  maintained.  The  non- 
necessity of  miracles  cannot  be  asserted  by  them,  because  they  believe 
them  to  have  been  actually  performed  ;  and  that  they  are  subordinate 
proofs,  and  dependent  upon  the  sufficiency  of  the  internal  evidence,  is 
contradicted  by  the  whole  tenor  of  the  Scriptures,  which  represent  them 
as  being  in  themselves  an  absolute  demonstration  of  the  mission  and 
doctrine  of  the  prophets,  at  whose  instance  they  were  performed,  and 
never  direct  us  to  regard  their  doctrines  as  a  test  of  the  miracles.  The 
miracles  of  Christ,  in  particular,  were  a  demonstration,  not  a  partial 
and  conditional,  but  a  complete  and  absolute  demonstration  of  his  mis- 


FIRST. J  THEOLOGICAL   INSTITUTES.  91 

sion  from  God ;  and  "  it  may  be  observed,  with  respect  to  all  the  mira- 
cles of  the  New  Testament,  that  their  divinity,  considered  in  themselves, 
is  always  either  expressly  asserted,  or  manifestly  implied  :  and  they  are 
accordingly  urged  as  a  decisive  and  absolute  proof  of  the  divinity  of  the 
doctrine  and  testimony  of  those  who  perform  them,  without  ever  taking 
into  consideration  the  nature  of  the  doctrine,  or  of  the  testimony  to  be 
confirmed." 

Against  this  mode  of  stating  the  internal  evidence,  there  lies  also  this 
logical  objection,  that  it  is  arguing  in  a  circle  ; — the  miracles  are  proved 
by  the  doctrine,  and  then  the  doctrine  by  the  miracles ;  an  objection 
from  which  those  who  have  adopted  the  notion  either  of  the  superior  or 
the  co-ordinate  rank  of  the  internal  evidence,  have  not,  with  all  their 
ingenuity  and  effort,  fairly  escaped. 

Miracles  must,  therefore,  be  considered  as  the  leading  and  absolute 
evidence  of  a  revelation  from  God  ;  and  "  what  to  me,"  says  a  sensible 
writer,  "  is,  a  priori,  a  strong  argument  of  their  being  so,  is  the  mani- 
fest inconsistency  of  the  other  hypotheses  with  the  very  condition  of 
that  people  for  whose  sake  God  should  raise  up  at  any  time  his  extra- 
ordinary messengers,  endued  with  such  miraculous  powers.  For  if 
God  ever  favours  mankind  with  such  a  special  revelation  of  his  will, 
and  instructions  from  heaven,  in  a  way  supernatural,  it  is  certainly  in 
that  unhappy  juncture  when  the  principles  and  practices  of  mankind 
are  so  miserably  depraved  and  corrupted,  as  to  want  the  light  and  assist- 
ance of  revelation  extremely,  and  are  (humanly  speaking)  utterly  incor- 
rigible without  it.  Now,  to  say  that,  in  these  particular  circumstances, 
men  are  not  to  depend  on  any  real  miracles,  but,  before  they  admit 
them  as  evidence  of  the  prophet's  Divine  mission,  they  must  carefully 
examine  his  doctrine,  to  see  if  it  be  perfectly  good  and  true,  is  either  to 
suppose  these  people  furnished  with  principles  and  knowledge  requisite 
for  that  purpose,  contrary,  point  blank,  to  the  real  truth  of  their  case  ; 
or  else  it  is  to  assert,  that  they  who  are  utterly  destitute  of  principles 
and  knowledge  requisite  for  that  work,  must,  nevertheless,  undertake  it 
without  them,  and  judge  of  the  truth  of  the  prophet's  doctrine  and  au- 
thority by  their  false  principles  of  religion  and  morality ;  which,  in 
short,  is  to  fix  them  immovably  where  they  are  already,  in  old  errone- 
ous principles,  against  any  new  and  true  ones  that  should  be  offered. 
Especially  with  the  bulk  of  mankind,  full  of  darkness  and  prejudice,  this 
must  unavoidably  be  the  consequence ;  and  the  more  they  wanted  a 
reformation  in  principle,  the  less  capable  would  they  be  of  receiving  it 
in  this  method.  Thus,  for  instance  :  were  a  teacher  sent  from  heaven, 
with  signs  and  wonders,  to  a  nation  of  idolaters,  and  they  previously 
instructed  to  regard  no  miracles  of  his  whatsoever,  till  they  were  fully 
satisfied  of  the  goodness  of  his  doctrine,  it  is  easy  to  foresee  by  what 
rule  they  would  prove  his  doctrine,  and  what  success  he  would  meet 


92  THEOLOGICAL   INSTITUTES.  (PAJtT 

with  among  them.  Add  to  this,  what  is  likewise  exceedingly  material, 
the  great  delays  and  perplexities  attending  this  way  of  proceeding.  For 
it"  every  article  of  doctrine  must  be  discussed  and  scanned  by  every  per- 
son to  whom  it  is  offered,  what  slow  advances  would  be  made  by  a  Di- 
vine revelation  among  such  a  people !  Hundreds  would  probably  be 
cut  off  before  they  came  to  the  end  of  their  queries,  and  the  prophet 
might  grow  decrepit  with  age,  before  he  gained  twenty  proselytes  in  a 
nation."  (Chapman's  Eusebius.) 

It  is  easy  to  discover  the  causes  which  have  led  to  these  mistakes,  as 
to  the  true  office  of  the  internal  evidence  of  a  Divine  revelation. 

In  the  first  place,  a  hypothetic  case  has  been  assumed,  and  it  has 
been  asked,  "  If  a  doctrine,  absurd  and  wicked,  should  be  attested  by 
miracles,  is  it  to  be  admitted  as  Divine,  upon  their  authority  1"  The 
answer  is,  that  this  is  a  case  which  cannot  in  the  nature  of  things  occur, 
and  cannot,  therefore,  be  made  the  basis  of  an  argument.  We  have 
seen  already,  that  a  real  miracle  can  be  wrought  by  none  but  God,  or  by 
his  commission,  because  the  contrary  supposition  would  exclude  him 
from  the  government  of  the  world  which  he  has  made  and  preserves. 
Whenever- a  real  miracle  takes  place,  therefore,  in  attestation  of  any 
doctrine,  that  doctrine  cannot  be  either  unreasonable  or  impious ;  and  if 
it  should  appear  so  to  us,  after  the  reality  of  the  miracle  is  ascertained, 
which  is  not  probable  ordinarily,  our  judgment  must  be  erroneous. 
The  miracle  proves  the  doctrine,  or  the  ground  on  which  miracles  are 
allowed  to  have  any  force  of  evidence  at  all,  either  supreme  or  sub- 
ordinate, absolute  or  dependent,  must  be  given  up  ;  for  their  evidence 
consists  in  this — that  they  are  the  works  of  God. 

The  second  cause  of  the  error  has  been,  that  the  rational  evidence 
of  the  truths  contained  in  a  revelation  has  been  confounded  with  the 
authenticating  evidence.  When  once  an  exhibition  of  the  character, 
plans,  and  laws  of  God  is  made,  though  in  their  nature  totally  undis- 
coverable,  by  human  faculties,  they  carry  to  the  reason  of  man,  so  far 
as  they  are  of  a  nature  to  be  comprehended  by  it,  the  demonstration 
which  accompanies  truth  of  any  other  kind.  For  as  the  eye  is  formed 
to  receive  light,  the  rational  powers  of  man  are  formed  to  receive  con- 
viction when  the  congruity  of  propositions  is  made  evident.  This  is 
rational,  but  it  is  not  authenticating  evidence.  Let  us  suppose  that  there 
is  no  external  testimony  of  miracles  or  prophecy  vouchsafed  to  attest 
that  the  teacher,  through  whom  we  receive  those  doctrines  which  appear 
to  us  so  sublime,  so  important,  so  true,  received  them  from  God,  with  a 
mission  to  impart  them  to  us.  He  himself  has  no  means  of  knowing 
them  to  be  from  God,  or  of  distinguishing  them  from  some  happy  train 
of  thought,  into  which  his  mind  has  been  carried  by  its  owri  force  ;  nor 
if  he  had,  have  we  any  means  of  concluding  that  they  are  more  than  the 
opinions  of  a  mind,  superior  in  vigor  and  grasp  to   our  own.     They 


FIRST.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  93 

may  be  true,  but  they  are  not  attested  to  be  Divine.  We  have  no 
guarantee  of  their  infallible  truth,  because  our  own  rational  powers  are 
not  infallible,  nor  those  of  the  most  gifted  human  mind.  Add  then  the 
external  testimony,  and  we  have  the  attestation  required.  The  rational 
evidence  of  the  doctrine  is  the  same  in  both  cases ;  but  the  rational 
evidence,  though  to  us  it  is  as  far,  and  only  as  far,  as  we  can  claim 
infallibility  for  our  judgment,  the  proof  of  the  truth  of  the  doctrine  is 
no  proof  at  all  that  God  has  revealed  it.  In  the  external  testimony  alone 
that  proof  is  found :  the  degree  of  rational  evidence  we  have  of  the 
truth  and  excellency  of  the  doctrine  may  be  a  farther  commendation  of 
it  to  us,  but  it  is  no  part  of  its  authority. 

From  this  distinction,  the  relative  importance  of  the  external  and  the 
internal  evidence  of  a  revelation  may  be  farther  illustrated.  Rational 
evidence  of  the  doctrines  proposed  to  us,  when  it  can  be  had,  goes  to 
establish  their  truth,  so  far  as  we  can  depend  upon  our  judgment ;  but 
the  external  testimony,  if  satisfactory,  establishes  their  Divine  authority, 
and  therefore  their  absolute  truth,  and  leaves  us  no  appeal.  Still  far- 
ther, a  revelation,  dependent  upon  internal  evidence  only,  could  contain 
no  doctrines,  and  enjoin  no  duties,  but  of  which  the  evidence  to  our 
reason  should  be  complete.  The  least  objection  grounded  on  a  plausible 
contrary  reason  would  weaken  their  force,  and  the  absence  of  a  clear 
perception  of  their  congruity  with  some  previous  principles,  admitted  as 
true,  would  be  the  absence  of  all  evidence  of  their  truth  whatever.  On 
the  other  hand,  a  revelation,  with  rational  proof  of  a  Divine  attestation, 
renders  our  instruction  in  many  doctrines  and  duties  possible,  the  rational 
evidence  of  whose  truth  is  wanting  ;  and  as  some  doctrines  may  be  true, 
and  highly  important  to  us,  which  are  not  capable  of  this  kind  of  proof, 
that  is,  which  are  not  so  fully  known  as  to  be  compared  with  any 
received  propositions,  and  determined  by  them,  our  knowledge  is,  in  this 
way,  greatly  enlarged  :  the  benefits  of  revelation  are  extended  ;  and  the 
whole  becomes  obligatory,  and  therefore  efficient  to  moral  purposes, 
because  it  bears  upon  it  the  seal  of  an  infallible  authority. 

The  firmer  ground  on  which  a  revelation,  founded  upon  reasonable 
external  proof  of  authority,  rests,  is  also  obvious.  The  doctrines  in 
which  we  need  to  be  instructed  are,  the  nature  of  God  ;  our  own  rela- 
tions to  that  invisible  Being ;  his  will  concerning  us ;  the  means  of 
obtaining  or  securing  his  favour ;  the  principles  of  his  government ;  and 
a  future  life.  These,  and  others  of  a  similar  kind,  involve  great  diffi- 
culties, as  the  history  of  moral  knowledge  among  mankind  sufficiently 
proves ;  and  that,  not  only  among  those  who  never  had  the  benefits  of  the 
Biblical  revelation  on  these  subjects,  but  among  those  who,  not  consider- 
ing it  as  an  authority,  have  indulged  the  philosophizing  spirit,  and  judged 
of  these  doctrines  merely  by  their  rational  evidence.  This,  from  the 
nature  of  things,  appearing  under  different  views  to  different  minds,  has 


94  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

produced  almost  as  much  contrariety  of  opinion  among  them,  as  we 
find  among  the  sages  of  pagan  antiquity.  The  mere  rational  proof  of 
the  truth  of  such  doctrines  being  therefore,  from  its  nature,  in  many  im- 
portant respects  obscure,  and  liable  to  diversity  of  opinion,  would  lay  but 
a  very  precarious  and  shifting  foundation  for  faith  in  any  revelation  from 
God  suited  to  remove  the  ignorance  of  man  on  points  so  important  in 
doctrine,  and  so  essential  to  an  efficient  religion  and  morality. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  process  of  obtaining  a  rational  proof  of  the 
Divine  attestation  of  a  doctrine,  by  miracles  for  instance,  is  of  the  most 
simple  and  decisive  kind,  and  gives  to  unbelief  the  character  of  obvious 
perverseness  and  inconsistency.  Perverseness,  because  there  is  a  clear 
opposition  of  the  will  rather  than  of  the  judgment  in  the  case  ;  incon- 
sistency, because  a  much  lower  degree  of  evidence  is,  by  the  very 
objectors,  acted  upon  in  their  most  important  concerns  in  life.  For 
who  that  saw  the  dead  raised  to  life,  in  an  appeal  to  the  Lord  of  life,  in 
confirmation  of  a  doctrine  professing  to  be  taught  by  his  authority,  but 
must,  unless  wilful  perverseness  interposed,  acknowledge  a  Divine  testi- 
mony ;  and  who  that  heard  the  fact  reported  on  the  testimony  of  honest 
men  and  competent  observers,  under  circumstances  in  which  no  illusion 
can  take  place,  but  must  be  charged  with  inconsistency,  should  he  treat 
the  report  with  skepticism,  when,  upon  the  same  kind  and  quantum  of 
evidence,  he  would  so  credit  any  report  as  to  his  own  affairs,  as  to  risk 
the  greatest  interests  upon  it  ?  In  difficult  doctrines,  of  a  kind  to  give 
rise  to  a  variety  of  opinions,  the  rational  evidence  is  accompanied  with 
doubt ;  in  such  a  case  as  that  of  the  miracle  we  have  supposed,  it  rests 
on  principles  supported  by  the  universal  and  constant  experience  of 
mankind  : — 1.  That  the  raising  of  the  dead  is  above  human  power  : 
2.  That  men,  unquestionably  virtuous  in  every  other  respect,  are  not 
likely  to  propagate  a  deliberate  falsehood  :  and  3.  That  it  contradicts  all 
ihe  known  motives  to  action  in  human  nature,  that  they  should  do  so,  not 
only  without  advantage,  but  at  the  hazard  of  reproach,  persecution,  and 
death.  The  evidence  of  such  an  attestation  is  therefore  as  indubitable 
as  these  principles  themselves. 

The  fourth  kind  of  evidence,  by  which  a  revelation  from  God  may  be 
confirmed,  is  the  collateral ;  on  which,  at  present,  we  need  not  say 
more  than  adduce  some  instances,  merely  to  illustrate  this  kind  of  testi- 
mony. 

The  collateral  evidence  of  a  revelation  from  God  may  be  its 
agreement  in  principle  with  every  former  revelation,  should  previous 
revelations  have  been  vouchsafed — that  it  was  obviously  suited  to  the 
circumstances  of  the  w  orld  at  the  time  of  its  communication — that  it  is 
adapted  to  effect  the  great  moral  ends  which  it  purposes,  and  has  actu- 
ally effected  them — that  if  it  contain  a  record  of  facts,  as  well  as  of 
doctrines,  those  historical  facts  agree  with  the  credible  traditions  and 


FIRST.]  THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES.  95 

histories  of  the  same  times — that  monuments,  either  natural  or  insti- 
tuted, remain  to  attest  the  truth  of  its  history — that  adversaries  have 
made  concessions  in  its  favour — and  that,  should  it  profess  to  be  a 
universal  and  ultimate  revelation  of  the  will  and  mercy  of  God  to  man, 
it  maintains  its  adaptation  to  the  case  of  the  human  race,  and  its 
efficiency,  to  the  present  day.  These  and  many  other  circumstances 
may  he  ranked  under  the  head  of  collateral  evidence,  and  some  of  them 
will,  in  their  proper  place,  be  applied  to  the  Holy  Scriptures. 


CHAPTER  XL 

The  Use  and  Limitation  of  Reason  in  Religion. 

Having  pointed  out  the  kind  of  evidence  by  which  a  revelation  from 
God  may  be  authenticated,  and  the  circumstances  under  which  it  ought 
to  produce  conviction  and  enforce  obedience,  it  appears  to  be  a  natural 
order  of  proceeding  to  consider  the  subject  of  the  title  of  this  chapter, 
inasmuch  as  evidence  of  this  kind,  and  for  this  end,  must  be  addressed 
to  our  reason,  the  only  faculty  which  is  capable  of  receiving  it.  But 
as  to  this  office  of  our  reason  important  limitations  and  rules  must  be 
assigned,  it  will  be  requisite  to  adduce  and  explain  them. 

The  present  argument  being  supposed  to  be  with  one  who  believes  in 
a  God,  the  Lord  and  Governor  of  man,  and  that  he  is  a  Being  of  infinite 
perfections,  our  observations  will  have  the  advantage  of  certain  first 
principles  which  that  belief  concedes. 

We  have  already  adduced  much  presumptive  evidence,  that  a  revela- 
tion of  the  will  of  God  is  essential  to  his  moral  government,  and  that 
such  a  revelation  has  actually  been  made.  We  have  also  farther  con- 
sidered the  kind  and  degree  of  evidence  which  is  necessary  to  ratify  it. 
The  means  by  which  a  conviction  of  its  truth  is  produced,  is  the  point 
before  us. 

The  subject  to  be  examined  is  the  truth  of  a  religious  and  moral 
system,  professing  to  be  from  God,  though  communicated  by  men,  who 
plead  his  authority  for  its  promulgation.  If  there  be  any  force  in  the 
preceding  observations,  we  are  not,  in  the  first  instance,  to  examine  the 
doctrine,  in  order  to  determine  from  our  own  opinion  of  its  excellence, 
whether  it  be  from  God,  (for  to  this,  if  we  need  a  revelation,  we  are 
incompetent,)  but  we  are  to  inquire  into  the  credentials  of  the  messengers, 
in  quest  of  sufficient  proof  that  God  hath  spoken  to  mankind  by  them. 
Should  a  slight  consideration  of  the  doctrine,  either  by  its  apparent  ex- 
cellence or  the  contrary,  attract  us  strongly  to  this  examination,  it  is 
well :  but  whatever  prejudices,  for  or  against  the  doctrine,  a  report,  or 
a  hasty  opinion  of  its  nature  and  tendency  may  inspire,  our  final  judg- 
ment can  only  safely  rest  upon  the  proof  which  may  be  afforded  of  its 


96  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

Divine  authority.  If  that  be  satisfactory,  the  case  is  determined,  whether 
the  doctrine  be  pleasing  or  displeasing  to  us.  If  sufficient  evidence  be 
not  afforded,  we  are  at  liberty  to  receive  or  reject  the  whole  or  any  part 
of  it  as  it  may  appear  to  us  to  be  worthy  of  our  regard ;  for  it  then 
stands  on  the  same  ground  as  any  other  merely  human  opinion.  We 
are,  however,  to  beware  that  this  is  done  upon  a  very  solemn  re- 
sponsibility. 

The  proof  of  the  Divine  authority  of  a  system  of  doctrine  communi- 
cated under  such  circumstances,  is  addressed  to  our  reason,  or  in  other 
words  it  must  be  reasonable  proof  that  in  this  revelation  there  has  been 
a  direct  and  special  interposition  of  God. 

On  the  principles  therefore  already  laid  down,  that  though  the  rational 
evidence  of  a  doctrine  lies  in  the  doctrine  itself,  the  rational  proof  of 
the  Divine  authority  of  a  doctrine  must  be  external  to  that  doctrine  ;  and 
that  miracles  and  prophecy  are  appropriate  and  satisfactory  attestations 
of  such  an  authority  whenever  they  occur,  the  use  of  human  reason  in 
this  inquiry  is  apparent.  The  alleged  miracles  themselves  are  to  be 
examined,  to  determine  whether  they  are  real  or  pretended,  allowing 
them  to  have  been  performed ;  the  testimony  of  witnesses  is  to  be  in- 
vestigated, to  determine  whether  they  actually  occurred ;  and  if  this 
testimony  has  been  put  on  record,  we  have  also  to  determine  whether 
the  record  was  at  first  faithfully  made,  and  whether  it  has  been  carefully 
and  uncorruptedly  preserved.  With  respect  to  prophecy  we  are  also  to 
examine,  whether  the  professed  prophecy  be  a  real  prediction  of  future 
events,  or  only  an  ambiguous  and  equivocal  saying,  capable  of  being 
understood  in  various  ways ;  whether  it  relates  to  events  which  lie 
beyond  the  guess  of  wise  and  observing  men  ;  whether  it  was  uttered 
so  long  before  the  events  predicted,  that  they  could  not  be  anticipated  in 
the  usual  order  of  things  ;  whether  it  was  publicly  or  privately  uttered  ; 
and  whether,  if  put  on  record,  that  record  has  been  faithfully  kept.  To 
these  points  must  our  consideration  be  directed,  and  to  ascertain  the 
strength  of  the  proof  is  the  important  province  of  our  reason  or  judgment. 

The  second  use  of  reason  respects  the  interpretation  of  the  revelation 
thus  authenticated  ;  and  here  the  same  rules  are  to  be  applied  as  in  the 
interpretation  of  any  other  statement  or  record  ;  for  as  our  only  object, 
after  the  authenticity  of  the  revelation  is  established,  is  to  discover  its 
sense,  or  in  other  words  to  ascertain  what  is  declared  unto  us  therein  by 
God,  our  reason  or  judgment  is  called  to  precisely  the  same  office  as 
when  the  meaning  of  any  other  document  is  in  question.  The  terms  of 
the  record  are  to  be  taken  in  their  plain  and  commonly  received  sense ; — 
figures  of  speech  are  to  be  interpreted  with  reference  to  the  local  peculi- 
arities of  the  country  in  which  the  agents  who  wrote  the  record  resided ; — 
idioms  are  to  be  understood  according  to  the  genius  of  the  language  em- 
ployed ; — if  any  allegorical  or  mystical  discourses  occur,  the  key  to  them 


FIRST.j  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  97 

must  be  sought  in  the  book  itself,  and  not  in  our  own  fancies  ;—whai  is 
obscure  must  be  interpreted  by  that  which  is  plain  ; — the  scope  and  tenor 
of  a  discourse  must  be  regarded,  and  no  conclusion  formed  on  passages 
detached  from  iiteir  context,  except  tliey  are  complete  in  their  sense,  or 
evidently  intended  as  axioms  and  apophthegms.  These  and  other  rules, 
w  hich  respect  the  time  and  place  when  the  record  was  written  ;  the 
circumstances  of  the  writer  and  of  those  to  whom  he  immediately  ad- 
dressed  himself;  local  customs,  &c,  appear  in  this,  and  all  other  cases, 
so  just  and  reasonable  as  to  commend  themselves  to  every  sober  man  : 
and  we  rightly  use  our  reason  in  the  interpretation  of  a  received  revela- 
tion, when  we  conduct  our  inquiries  into  its  meaning,  by  those  plain 
common-sense  rules  which  are  adopted  by  all  mankind  when  the  mean- 
ing of  other  writings  is  to  be  ascertained. 

It  has  been  added,  as  a  rule  of  interpretation,  that  when  a  revelation1' 
is  sufficiently  attested,  and  in  consequence  of  that  admitted,  nothing  is  to> 
be  deduced  from  it  which  is  contrary  to  reason.  As  this  rule  is  liable 
to  be  greatly  misunderstood,  and  has  sometimes  been  pushed  to  injurious- 
consequences,  we  shall  consider  it  at  some  length ;  and  point  out  the 
sense  in  which  it  may  be  safely  admitted. 

Some  persons,  who  advocate  this  principle  of  interpretation,  appear  to 
confound  the  reason  of  man,  with  the  reason  or  nature  of  things,  and  the 
relations  which  subsist  among  them.  These  however  can  be  known  • 
fully  to  God  alone ;  and  to  use  the  term  reason  in  this  sense,  is  the 
same  as  to  use  it  in  the  sense  of  the  reason  of  God, — to  an  equality  with 
which  human  reason  cannot  aspire.  It  may  be  the  reverse  of  Divine 
reason,  or  a  faint  radiation  from  it,  but  never  can  it  be  full  and  perfect 
as  the  reason  of  a  mind  of  perfect  knowledge.  It  is  admitted  that  no- 
thing can  be  revealed  by  God,  as  truth,  contradictory  of  his  knowledge, 
and  of  the  nature  of  things  themselves ;  but  it  follows  not  from  this,  that 
nothing  should  be  contained  in  that  revelation  contradictory  of  the  limit- 
ed and  often  erring  reason  of  man.  (3) 

Another  distinction  necessary  to  be  made  in  order  to  the  right  appli- 

(3)  "  It  is  the  error  of  those  who  contend  that  all  necessary  truth  is  discoverable 
or  demonstrable  by  reason,  that  they  affirm  of  human  reason  in  particular,  what 
is  only  true  of  reason  in  general,  or  of  reason  in  the  abstract.  To  say,  that 
whatever  is  true,  must  be  either  discoverable  or  demonstrable  by  reason,  can 
only  be  affirmed  of  an  all-perfect  reason  ;  and  is  therefore  predicated  of  none  but 
the  Divine  intellect.  So  that,  unless  it  can  be  shown  that  human  reason  is  the 
same,  in  degree,  as  well  as  in  kind,  with  Divine  reason  ;  i.  e.  commensurate  with 
it  as  to  its  powers,  and  equally  incapable  of  error ;  the  inference  from  reason  in 
the  abstract,  to  human  reason,  is  manifestly  inconclusive.  Nothing  more  is  necessary 
to  show  the  fallacy  of  this  mode  of  arguing,  than  to  urge  the  indisputable  truth, 
that  God  is  wiser  than  man,  and  has  endued  man  with  only  a  portion  of  that 
faculty  which  he  himself,  and  none  other  beside  him,  possesses  in  absolute  per 
fection."  (Van  Mildert's  Sermons  at  Boyle's  Lecture.) 
Vol.  I.  7 


98  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  .[PART 

cation  of  this  rule  is,  that  a  doctrine  which  cannot  be  proved  by  our 
reason,  is  not  on  that  account,  contrary  either  to  the  nature  of  things, 
or  even  to  reason  itself.  This  is  sometimes  lost  sight  of,  and  that  which 
has  no  evidence  from  our  reason  is  hastily  presumed  to  be  against  it. 
Now  rational  investigation  is  a  process  by  which  we  inquire  into  the 
truth  or  falsehood  of  any  thing  by  comparing  it  with  what  we  intuitively, 
or  by  experience,  know  to  be  true,  or  with  that  which  we  have  formerly 
demonstrated  to  be  so.  "  By  reason,"  says  Cicero,  "  we  are  led  from 
things  apprehended  and  understood,  to  things  not  apprehended."  Ra- 
tional proof  therefore  consists  in  the  agreement  or  disagreement  of  that 
which  is  compared  with  truths  already  supposed  to  be  established.  But 
there  may  be  truths,  the  evidence  of  which  can  only  be  fully  known  to 
the  Divine  mind,  and  on  which  the  reasoning  or  comparing  faculty  of 
an  inferior  nature  cannot,  from  their  vastness  or  obscurity,  be  employed ; 
and  such  truths  there  must  be  in  any  revelation  which  treats  of  the 
nature  and  perfections  of  God  ;  his  will  as  to  us,— and  the  relations  we 
stand  in  to  him,  and  to  another  state  of  being.  As  facts  and  doctrines, 
they  are  as  much  capable  of  revelation  as  if  the  whole  reason  of  things 
on  which  they  are  grounded  were  put  into  the  revelation  also  ;  but  they 
may  be  revealed  as  authoritative  declarations,  of  which  the  process  of 
proof  is  hidden,  either  because  it  transcends  our  faculties,  or  for  other 
reasons,  and  we  have  therefore  no  rational  evidence  of  their  truth  farther 
than  we  have  rational  evidence  that  they  come  from  God,  which  is  in 
fact  a  more  powerful  demonstration.  That  a  revelation  may  contain 
truths  of  this  transcendent  nature  must  be  allowed  by  all  who  have 
admitted  its  necessity,  if  they  would  be  consistent  with  themselves  ;  for 
its  necessity  rests,  in  great  part,  upon  the  weakness  of  human  reason. 
If  our  natural  faculties  could  have  reached  the  truths  thus  exhibited  to 
us,  there  had  been  no  need  of  supernatural  instruction  ;  and  if  it  has 
been  vouchsafed,  the  degree  depends  upon  the  Divine  will,  and  he  may 
give  a  doctrine  with  its  reasons,  or  without  them  ;  for  surely  the  ground 
of  our  obligation  to  believe  his  word  does  not  rest  upon  our  perception 
of  the  rational  evidence  of  the  truths  he  requires  us  to  believe.  If  doc- 
trines then  be  given  without  the  reasons  on  which  they  rest,  that  is, 
without  any  apparent  agreement  with  what  is  already  known  ;  because 
the  process  of  proof  must,  in  many  cases,  be  a  comparison  of  that  which 
is  too  vast  to  be  fully  apprehended  by  us  with  something  else  which, 
because  known  by  us,  mvist  be  comparatively  little,  or  perhaps  in  some 
of  its  qualities  or  relations  of  a  different  nature,  so  that  no  fit  comparison 
of  things  so  dissimilar  can  be  instituted  ;  this  circumstance  proves  the 
absence  of  rational  evidence  to  us  ;  but  it  by  no  means  follows,  that  the 
doctrine  is  incapable  of  rational  proof,  though  probably  no  reason  but 
that  of  God,  or  of'a  more  exalted  being  than  man  in  his  present  state 
may  be  adequate  to  unfold  it. 


FIRST.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  99 

It  has  indeed  been  maintained,  that  though  our  reason  may  be  inade- 
quate to  the  discovery  of  such  truths  as  the  kind  of  revelation  we  have 
supposed  to  be  necessary  must  contain,  yet,  when  aided  by  this  revela- 
tion, it  is  raised  into  so  perfect  a  condition,  that  what  appears  incongru- 
ous to  it  ought  to  be  concluded  contrary  to  the  revelation  itself.  This, 
to  a  certain  extent,  is  true.  When  a  doctrine  is  clearly  revealed  to  us, 
standing  as  it  does  upon  an  infallible  authority,  no  contrary  doctrine  can 
be  true,  whether  found  without  the  record  of  the  revelation,  or  deduced 
from  it ;  for  this  is  in  fact  no  more  than  saying,  that  human  opinions 
must  be  tried  by  Divine  authority,  and  that  revelation  must  be  consistent 
with  itself.  The  test  to  which  in  this  case,  however,  we  subject  a  con- 
tradictory doctrine,  so  long  as  we  adhere  to  the  revelation,  is  formed  of 
principles  which  our  reason  did  not  furnish,  but  such  as  were  communi- 
cated to  us  by  supernatural  interposition  ;  and  the  judge  to  which  we 
refer  is  not,  properly  speaking,  reason,  but  revelation. 

But  if  by  this  is  meant,  that  our  reason,  once  enlightened  by  the  annun- 
ciation of  the  great  truths  of  revelation,  can  discover  or  complete,  in  all 
cases,  the  process  of  their  rational  proof,  that  is,  their  conformity  to  the 
nature  and  truth  of  ''..tigs,  and  is  thus  authorized  to  reject  whatever 
cannot  be  thus  harmonized  with  our  own  deductions  from  the  leading 
truths  thus  revealed,  so  great  a  concession  cannot  be  made  to  human 
ability.  In  many  of  the  rules  of  morals,  and  the  doctrines  of  religion 
too,  it  may  be  allowed,  that  a  course  of  thought  is  opened  which  may 
be  pursued  to  the  enlargement  of  the  rational  evidence  of  the  doctrines 
taught,  but  not  as  to  what  concerns  many  of  the  attributes  of  God  ;  his 
purposes  concerning  the  human  race  ;  some  of  his  most  important  pro- 
cedures toward  us ;  and  the  future  destiny  of  man.  When  once  it  is 
revealed  that  man  is  a  creature,  we  cannot  but  perceive  the  reasonable- 
ness of  our  being  governed  by  the  law  of  our  Creator ;  that  this  is 
founded  in  his  right  and  our  duty ;  and  that,  when  we  are  concerned 
with  a  wise,  and  gracious,  and  just  Governor,  what  is  our  duty  must  of 
necessity  be  promotive  of  our  happiness.  But  if  the  revelation  should 
contain  any  declarations  as  to  the  nature  of  the  Creator  himself,  as  that 
he  is  eternal  and  self  existent  and  in  every  place ;  and  that  he  knows 
all  things ;  the  thoughts  thus  suggested,  the  doctrines  thus  stated,  nakedly 
and  authoritatively,  are  too  mysterious  to  be  distinctly  apprehended  by 
us,  and  we  are  unable,  by  comparing  them  with  any  thing  else,  (for  we 
know  nothing  with  which  we  can  compare  them,)  to  acquire  any  clear 
views  of  the  manner  in  which  such  a  being  exists,  or  why  such  perfec- 
tions necessarily  flow  from  his  peculiar  nature.  If,  therefore,  the  reve- 
lation itself  does  not  state  in  addition  to  the  mere  facts  that  he  is  self 
existent,  omnipresent,  omniscient,  <Stc,  the  manner  in  which  the  existence 
of  such  attributes  harmonizes  with  the  nature  and  reason  of  things,  we 
cannot  supply  the  chasm  ;  and  should  we  even  catch  some  view  of  the 


100  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  fPAKT 

rational  evidence,  which  is  not  denied,  we  are  unable  to  complete  it ;  our 
reason  is  not  enlightened  up  to  the  full  measure  of  these  truths,  nor  on 
such  subjects  are  we  quite  certain  that  some  of  our  most  rational  deduc- 
tions are  perfectly  sound,  and  we  cannot,  therefore,  make  use  of  them 
as  standards  by  which  to  try  any  doctrine,  beyond  the  degree  in  which 
they  are  clearly  revealed,  and  authoritatively  stated  to  us.  Other 
examples  might  be  given,  but  these  are  sufficient  for  illustration. 

These  observations  being  made,  it  will  be  easy  to  assign  definite  limits 
to  the  rule,  "  that  no  doctrine  in  an  admitted  revelation  is  to  be  under- 
stood  in  a  sense  contrary  to  reason."  The  only  way  in  which  such  a 
rule  can  be  safely  received  is,  that  nothing  is  to  be  taken  as  a  true  inter- 
pretation, when,  as  to  the  subject  in  question,  we  have  sufficient  know- 
ledge to  affirm,  that  the  interpretation  is  contrary  to  the  nature  of  things, 
which,  in  this  case,  it  is  also  necessary  to  be  assured  that  we  have  been 
able  to  ascertain.  Of  some  things  we  know  the  nature  without  a  reve- 
lation, inasmuch  as  they  lie  within  the  range  of  our  own  observation  and 
experience,  as  that  a  human  body  cannot  be  in  two  places  at  the  same 
time.  Of  other  things  we  know  the  nature  by  revelation,  and  by  that 
our  knowledge  is  enlarged.  If,  therefore,  ftttu.  '"trie  figurative  passages 
of  a  revelation,  any  person,  as  the  papists,  should  affirm,  that  wine  is 
human  blood,  or  that  a  human  body  can  be  in  two  places  at  the  same 
time,  it  is  contrary  to  our  reason,  that  is,  not  to  mere  opinion,  but  to  the 
nature  of  something  which  we  know  so  well,  that  we  are  bound  to  reject 
the  interpretation  as  an  absurdity.  If,  again,  any  were  to  interpret 
passages  which  speak  of  God  as  having  the  form  of  man  to  mean,  that 
he  has  merely  a  local  presence,  our  reason  has  been  taught  by  revela- 
tion, that  God  is  a  spirit,  and  exists  every  where,  that  is,  so  far  we  have 
been  taught  the  nature  of  things  as  to  God,  that  we  reject  the  interpre- 
tation, as  contrary  to  what  has  been  so  clearly  revealed,  and  resolve 
every  anthropomorphite  expression  we  may  find  in  the  revelation  into 
figurative  and  accommodated  language.  In  the  application  of  this  rule, 
when  even  thus  limited,  care  is,  however,  to  be  taken,  that  we  distin- 
guish what  is  capable  of  being  tried  by  it.  If  we  compare  one  thing 
with  another,  in  order  to  determine  whether  it  agrees  with,  or  differs 
from  it,  it  is  not  enough  that  we  have  sufficient  knowledge  of  that 
with  which  we  compare  it,  and  which  we  have  made  the  standard  of 
judgment.  It  is  also  necessary  that  the  things  compared  should  be  of 
the  same  nature ;  and  that  the  comparison  should  be  made  in  the  same 
espects.  We  take  for  illustration  the  case  just  given.  Of  two  bodies 
we  can  affirm,  that  they  cannot  be  in  the  same  place  at  the  same  time  ; 
out  we  cannot  affirm  that  of  a  body  and  a  spirit,  for  we  know  what 
relation  bodies  have  to  place  and  to  each  other,  but  we  do  not  know 
what  relation  spirits  have  to  each  other,  or  to  space.  This  may  illustrate 
the  first  rule.     The  second  demands,  that  the  comparison  be  made  in 


F1RST.J  THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES.  101 

the  same  respect.  If  we  affirm  of  two  bodies,  one  of  a  round,  and  the 
other  of  a  square  figure,  that  their  figure  is  the  same, 'the  comparison 
determines  the  case,  and  at  once  detects  the  error  ;  but  of  these  bodies, 
so  different  in  figure,  it  may  be  affirmed  without  contradiction,  thot  they 
are  of  the  same  specific  gravity,  for  the  difference  of  figure  is  not  that 
in  respect  of  which  the  comparison  is  made.  We  apply  this  to  the  inter- 
pretation of  a  revelation  of  God  and  his  will.  The  rule  which  requires 
us  to  reject  as  a  true  interpretation  of  that  revelation,  whatever  is  con- 
trary to  reason,  may  be  admitted  in  all  cases  where  we  know  the  real 
nature  of  things,  and  conduct  the  comparison  with  the  cautions  just 
given  ;  but  it  would  be  most  delusive,  and  would  counteract  the  intention 
of  the  revelation  itself,  by  unsettling  its  authority,  if  it  were  applied  in 
any  other  way.     For, 

1.  In  all  cases  where  the  nature  of  things  is  not  clearly  and  satis- 
factorily known,  it  cannot  be  affirmed  that  a  doctrine  contradicts  them, 
and  is  therefore  contrary  to  reason. 

2.  When  that  of  which  we  would  form  a  rational  judgment  is  not 
itself  distinctly  apprehended,  it  cannot  be  satisfactorily  compared  with 
those  things,  the  nature  of  which  we  adequately  know,  and  therefore 
cannot  be  said  to  be  contrary  to  reason. 

Now  in  such  a  revelation  as  we  have  supposed  necessary  for  man, 
there  are  many  facts  and  doctrines  which  are  not  capable  of  being  com- 
pared with  any  thing  we  adequately  know,  and  they  therefore  lie  wholly 
without  the  range  of  the  rule  in  question.  We  suppose  it  to  declare 
what  God,  the  infinite  First  Cause,  is.  But  it  is  of  the  nature  of  such  a 
being  to  *  be,  in  many  respects,  peculiar  to  himself,  and,  as  in  those 
respects  he  cannot  admit  of  comparison  with  any  other,  what  may  be 
false,  if  affirmed  of  ourselves,  because  contradictory  to  what  we  know 
of  human  nature,  may  be  true  of  him,  to  whom  the  nature  of  things  is 
his  own  nature,  and  his  own  nature  alone.  The  same  observation  may 
he  made  as  to  many  of  his  natural  attributes  ;  they  are  the  attributes  of 
a  peculiar  nature,  and  are  therefore  peculiar  to  themselves,  either  in 
kind  or  in  degree ;  they  admit  of  no  comparison,  each  being  like  himself, 
sui  generis :  and  the  nature  of  things,  as  to  them  respectively,  is  their 
own  nature.  The  same  reasoning  may,  in  part,  be  applied  to  the  general 
purposes  of  God,  in  making  and  governing  his  creatures.  They  are 
not,  in  every  respect,  capable  of  being  compared  to  any  thing  we  ade- 
quately know,  in  order  to  determine  their  reasonableness.  Creatures 
do  not  stand  to  each  other  in  all  the  relations  in  which  they  stand  to 
him,  and  no  reasoning  from  their  mutual  relations  can  assist  us  in  judg- 
ing of  the  plans  he  has  formed  with  respect  to  the  whole,  with  the  extent 
of  which,  indeed,  we  are  unacquainted,  or  often  of  a  part,  whose  rela- 
tions to  the  whole  we  know  not.  Were  we  to  subject  what  he  has 
commanded  us  to  do,  or  to  leave  undone,  to  the  test  of  reasonableness, 


/ 


102  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

we  should  often  be  at  a  loss  how  to  commence  the  inquiry,  for  it  may 
have  a  reason  arising  out  of  his  own  nature,  which  we  either  know  not 
at  all,  or  only  in  ,the  partial  and  authoritative  revelations  he  has  made 
,of  'umself ;  or  put  of  his  general  plans,  of  which  we  are  not  judges,  for 
the  reasons  just  given  ;  or  its  reason  may  lie  in  our  own  nature,  which 
we  know  but  partially,  because  we  find  it  differently  operated  upon  by 
circumstances,  and  cannot  know  in  what  circumstances  we  may  at  any 
future  time  be  placed. 

With  respect  to  the  moral  perfections  of  God,  as  they  are  more  capa- 
ble of  a  complete  comparison  with  what  we  find  in  intelligent  creatures, 
the  notion  of  infinity  being  applicable  to  them  in  a  different  sense  to  that 
in  which  it  is  applied  to  his  natural  attributes,  and  adequate  ideas  of 
justice  and  mercy  and  goodness  being  within  our  reach,  this  rule  is  much 
more  applicable  in  all  cases  which  would  involve  interpretations  con- 
sistent with  or  opposed  to  these  ideas ;  and  any  deduction  clearly  con- 
trary to  them  is  to  be  rejected,  as  grounded  not  upon  the  revelation  but 
a  false  interpretation.  This  will  be  the  more  confirmed,  if  we  find  any 
thing  in  the  revelation  itself  in  the  form  of  an  appeal  to  our  own  ideas 
of  moral  subjects,  as  for  instance  of  justice  and  equity,  in  justification 
of  the  Divine  proceedings  ;  for  then  we  have  the  authority  of  the  Giver 
of  the  revelation  himself  for  attaching  such  ideas  to  his  justice  and 
equity  as  are  implied  in  the  same  terms  in  the  language  of  men.  (4) 
A  doctrine  which  would  impugn  these  attributes,  is  not  therefore  to  be 
deduced  from  such  a  revelation  ;  but  here  the  rule  can  only  be  applied 
to  such  cases  as  we  fully  comprehend.  There  may  be  an  apparent 
injustice  in  a  case,  which,  if  we  knew  the  whole  of  it,  would  be  found 
to  harmonize  with  the  strictest  equity ;  and  what  evidence  of  conformity 
to  the  moral  attributes  of  God  it  now  wants  may  be  manifested  in  a 
future  state,  either  by  superior  information  then  vouchsafed  to  us,  or, 
when  the  subject  of  the  proceeding  is  an  immortal  being,  by  the  different 
circumstances  of  compensation  in  which  he  may  be  placed. 

Upon  the  whole  then  it  will  appear,  that  this  rule  of  interpreting  a  reve- 
lation is  necessarily  but  of  limited  application,  and  chiefly  respects  those 
parts  of  the  record  in  which  obscure  passages  and  figurative  language 
may  occur.  In  most  others,  a  revelation,  if  comprehensive,  will  be 
found  its  own  interpreter  by  bringing  every  doubtful  case  to  be  deter- 
mined by  its  own  unquestionable  general  principles,  and  explicit  decla- 
rations. /The  use  of  reason,  therefore,  in  matters  of  revelation,  is  to 
investigate  the  evidences  on  which  it  is  founded,  and  fairly  and  impar- 
tially to  interpret  it  according  to  the  ordinary  rules  of  interpretation  in 

(4)  Thus  in  the  Scriptures  we  find  numerous  appeals  of  this  kind :  "  Judge 
between  me  and  my  vineyard."  "  Are  not  my  ways  equal  ?"  "  Shall  not  the 
Judge  of  the  whole  earth  do  right  ?"  All  of  which  passages  suppose  that  equity 
and  justice  in  God  accord  with  the  ideas  attached  to  the  same  terms  among  men. 


FIRST.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  103 

other  cases.     Its  limit  is  the  authority  of  God./  When  he  has  expli- 
citly laid  down  a  doctrine,  that  doctrine  is  to  be  humbly  received,  what- 
ever degree  of  rational  evidence  may  be  afforded  of  its  truth,  or  with- 
held ;  and  no  torturing  or  perverting  criticisms  can  be  innocently  resorted 
to,  to  bring  a  doctrine  into  a  better  accordance  with  our  favourite  views 
and  systems,  any  more  than  to  make  a  precept  bend  to  the  love  and 
practice  of  our  vicious  indulgences  J   A  larger  scope  than  this  cannot  cer- 
tainly be  assigned  to  human  reason  in  matters  of  revelation,  when  it  is 
elevated  to  the  office  of  a.  judge — a  judge  of  the  evidences  on  which  a 
professed  revelation  rests,  and  a  judge  of  its  meaning  after  the  applica- 
tion of  the  established  rules  of  interpretation  in  o'ther  cases.  (5)    But  if 
reason  be  considered  as  a  learner,  it  may  have  a  much  wider  range  in 
those  fields  of  intelligence  which  a  genuine  revelation  from  God  will 
open  to  our  view.    All  truth,  even  that  which  to  us  is  most  abstruse  and 
mysterious,  is  capable  of  rational  demonstration,  though  not  to  the  rea- 
son of  man,  in  the  present  state,  and  in  some  cases  probably  to  no  reason 
below  that  of  the  Divine  nature.     Truth  is  founded  in  reality,  and  for 
that  reason  is  truth.     Some  truths  therefore,  which  a  revelation  only 
could  make  known,  will  often  appear  to  us  rational,  because  consistent 
with  what  we  already  know.     Meditation  upon  them,  or  experience  of 
their  reality  in  new  circumstances  in  which  we  may  be  placed,  may 
enlarge  that  evidence  ;  and  thus  our  views  of  the  conformity  of  many 
of  the  doctrines  revealed,  with  the  nature  and  reality  of  things,  may 
acquire  a  growing  clearness  and   distinctness.     The  observations  of 
others  also  may,  by  reading  and  converse,  be  added  to  our  own,  and 
often  serve  to  carry  out  our  minds  into  some  new  and  richer  vein  of 
thought.     Thus  it  is  that  reason,  instead  of  being  fettered,  as  some 
pretend,  by  being  regulated,  is  enlightened  by  revelation,  and  enabled 
from  the  first  principles,  and  by  the  grand  landmarks  which  it  fur- 
nishes, to  pursue  its  inquiries  into  many  subjects  to  an  extent  which 
enriches  and  ennobles  the  human  intellect,  and  administers  continual 
food  to  the  strength  of  religious  principle.     This,  however,  is  not  the 
case  with  all  subjects.     Many,  as  we  have  already  seen,  are  from 
their  very  nature  wholly  incapable  of  investigation.     At  the  first  step 
we  launch  into  darkness,  and  find  in  religion  as  well  as  in  natural  philoso- 
phy, beyond  certain  limits,  insurmountable  barriers,  which  bid  defiance 
to  human  penetration  ;  and  even  where  the  rational  evidence  of  a  truth 
but  nakedly  stated  in  revelation,  or  very  partially  developed,  can  by  human 
powers  be  extended,  that  circumstance  gives  us  no  qualification  to  judge 
of  the  truth  of  another  doctrine  which  is  stated  on  the  mere  authority  of 
the  dispenser  of  the  revelation,  and  of  which  there  is  no  evidence  at  all 
to  our  reason.     It  may  belong  to  subjects  of  another  and  a  higher  class ; 

(5)  See  note  A  at  the  end  of  this  chapter,  in  which  two  common  objections  are 
answered. 


104  THEOLOGICAL     INSTITUTES.  [PART 

and  if  it  be  found  in  the  Record,  is  not  to  be  explained  away  by  principles 
which  we  may  have  drawn  from  other  truths,  though  revealed,  for  those 
inferences  have  no  higher  an  authority  than  the  strength  of  our  own 
fallible  powers,  and  consequently  cannot  be  put  in  competition  with  the 
declarations  of  an  infallible  teacher,  ascertained  by  just  rules  of  gram- 
matical and  literary  interpretation. 


Note  A. — Page  103. 

•*  In  whatever  point  of  view,"  says  an  able  living  author,  "  the  subject  be  placed, 
the  same  arguments  which  show  the  incapability  of  man,  by  the  light  of  nature, 
to  discover  religious  truth,  will  serve  likewise  to  show,  that,  when  it  is  revealed 
to  him,  he  is  not  warranted  in  judging  of  it  merely  by  the  notions  which  he 
had  previously  formed.  For  is  it  not  a  solecism  to  affirm,  that  man's  natural 
reason  is  a  fit  standard  for  measuring  the  wisdom  or  truth  of  those  things  with 
which  it  is  wholly  unacquainted,  except  so  far  as  they  have  been  supernaturallj 
revealed  ?" 

"But  what,  then,"  (an  objector  will  say,)  "is  the  province  of  reason?  Is  it 
altogether  useless  ?  Or  are  we  to  bo  precluded  from  using  it  in  this  most  import- 
ant of  all  concerns,  for  our  security  against  error  ?" 

Our  answer  is,  that  we  do  not  lessen  either  the  utility  or  the  dignity  of  hiiman 
reason,  by  thus  confining  the  exercise  of  it  within  those  natural  boundaries  which 
the  Creator  himself  hath  assigned  to  it.  We  admit,  with  the  Deist,  that  "reason 
is  the  foundation  of  all  certitude :"  and  we  admit,  therefore,  that  it  is  fully  com- 
petent to  judge  of  the  credibility  of  any  thing  which  is  proposed  to  it  as  a  Divine 
revelation.  But  we  deny  that  it  has  a  right  to  dispute  (because  we  maintain  that 
it  has  not  the  ability  to  disprove)  the  wisdom  or  the  truth  of  those  things  which 
revelation  proposes  to  its  acceptance.  Reason  is  to  judge  whether  those  things 
be  indeed  so  revealed  :  and  this  judgment  it  is  to  form,  from  the  evidence  to  that 
effect.  In  this  respect  it  is  "  the  foundation  of  certitude,"  because  it  enables  us 
to  ascertain  the  fact,  that  God  hath  spoken  to  us.  But  this  fact  once  established, 
the  credibility,  nay,  the  certainty  of  the  things  revealed,  follows  as  of  necessary 
consequence ;  since  no  deduction  of  reason  can  be  more  indubitable  than  this, 
that  whatever  God  reveals  must  be  true.  Here,  then,  the  authority  of  reason 
ceases.  Its  judgment  is  finally  determined  by  the  fact  of  the  revelation  itself: 
and  it  has  thenceforth  nothing  to  do,  but  to  believe  and  to  obey. 

"  But  are  wo  to  believe  every  doctrine,  however  incomprehensible,  however 
mysterious,  nay,  however  seemingly  contradictory  to  sense  and  reason  ?" 

We  answer,  that  revelation  is  supposed  to  treat  of  subjects  with  which  man's 
natural  reason  is  not  conversant.  It  is  therefore  to  be  expected,  that  it  should 
communicate  some  truths  not  to  be  fully  comprehended  by  human  understandings. 
But  these  we  may  safely  receive,  upon  the  authority  which  declares  them,  without 
danger  of  violating  truth.  Real  and  evident  contradictions,  no  man  can,  indeed, 
believe,  whose  intellects  are  sound  and  clear.  But  such  contradictions  are  no 
more  p.r&posed  for  our  belief,  than  impossibilities  are  enjoined  for  our  practice  : 
though  things  difficult  to  understand,  as  well  as  things  hard  to  perform,  may 
perhaps  be  required  of  us,  for  the  trial  of  our  faith  and  resolution.  Seeming  con- 
tradictions may  also  occur :  but  these  may  seem  to  be  such  because  they  are 
slightly  or  superficially  considered,  or  because  they  are  judged  of  by  principles 
inapplicable  to  the  subject,  and  without  so  clear  a  knowlege  of  the  nature  of  the 


FIRST.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  105 

tilings  revealed,  as  may  lead  us  to  form  an  adequate  conception  of  them.  These, 
however,  afford  no  solid  argument  against  the  truth  of  what  is  proposeu  to  our 
belief:  since,  unless  wo  had  really  such  an  insight  into  the  mysterious  parts  of 
revelation  as  might  enable  us  to  prove  them  to  bo  contradictory  and  false,  we 
have  no  good  ground  for  rejecting  them  ;  and  we  only  betray  our  own  ignorance 
and  perverseness  in  refusing  to  take  God's  word  for  the  truth  of  things  which 
pass  man's  understanding. 

The  simple  question,  indeed,  to  be  considered,  is,  whether  it  be  reasonable  to 
believe,  upon  competent  authority,  things  which  we  can  neither  discover  our- 
selves,  nor,  when  discovered,  fully  and  clearly  comprehend  ?  Now  every  person 
of  common  observation  must  be  aware,  that  unless  he  be  content  to  receive  solely 
upon  the  testimony  of  others  a  great  variety  of  information,  much  of  which  he 
may  be  wholly  unable  to  account  for  or  explain,  he  could  scarcely  obtain  a  com. 
petency  of  knowledge  to  carry  him  safely  througli  the  common  concerns  of  life. 
And  with  respect  to  scientific  truths,  the  greatest  masters  in  philosophy  know 
full  well  that  many  things  aro  reasonably  to  be  believed,  nay,  must  be  believed  on 
sure  and  certain  grounds  of  conviction,  though  they  are  absolutely  incompre- 
hensible by  our  understandings,  and  even  so  difficult  to  be  reconciled  with  other 
truths  of  equal  certainty,  as  to  carry  the  appearance  of  being  contradictory  and 
impossible.  /  This  will  serve  to  show,  that  it  is  not  contrary  to  reason  to  believe, 
on  sufficient  authority,  some  things  which  cannot  be  comprehended,  and  some 
things  which,  from  the  narrow  and  circumscribed  views  we  are  able  to  take  of 
them,  appear  to  bo  repugnant  to  our  notions  of  truth)  The  ground  on  which  we 
believo  such  things,  is  the  strength  and  certainty  of  the  evidence  with  which 
they  are  accompanied.  And  this  is  precisely  the  ground  on  which  we  are  re. 
quired  to  believe  the  truths  of  revealed  religion.  JThe  evidence  that  they  come 
from  God,  is,  to  reason  itself,  as  incontrovertible  a  proof  that  they  are  true,  as  in 
matters  of  human  science  would  bo  the  evidence  of  sense,  or  of  mathematical 
demonstration. 


CHAPTER  XII 

Antiquity  of  the  Scriptures. 

From  the  preparatory  course  of  argument  and  observation  which  has 
been  hitherto  pursued,  we  proceed  to  the  investigation  of  the  question, 
whether  there  are  sufficient  reasons  to  conclude  that  such  a  revelation 
of  truth,  as  we  have  seen  to  be  so  necessary  for  the  instruction  and 
moral  correction  of  mankind,  is  to  be  found  in  the  Scriptures  of  the  Old 
and  New  Testaments  ;  a  question  of  the  utmost  importance,  inasmuch 
as,  if  not  found  there,  there  are  the  most  cogent  reasons  for  concluding, 
that  a  revelation  was  never  vouchsafed  to  man,  or  that  it  is  irretrievably 
lost. 

No  person  living  in  an  enlightened  country  will  for  a  moment  con- 
tend, that  the  Koran  of  Mohammed,  or  any  of  the  reputed  sacred 
writings  of  the  Chinese,  Hindoos,  or  Budhists,  can  be  put  into  competi- 
tion with  the  Bible  ;  so  that  it  is  universally  acknowledged  among  us, 
that  there  is  but  one  book  in  the  world  which  has  claims  to  Divine 


/ 


106  THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES.  [PART 

authority  so  presumptively  substantial  as  to  be  worthy  of  serious  exami- 
nation,— and  therefore  if  the  advantage  of  supernatural  and  infallible 
instruction  has  been  afforded  to  man,  it  may  be  concluded  to  be  found 
in  that  alone.  This  consideration  indicates  the  proper  temper  of  mind 
with  which  such  an  inquiry  ought  to  be  approached. 

Instead  of  wishing  to  discover  that  the  claims  of  the  Scriptures  to 
Divine  authority  are  unfounded,  (the  case  it  is  to  be  feared  with  too 
many,)  every  humble  and  sincere  man,  who,  conscious  of  his  own  men- 
tal infirmity,  and  recollecting  the  perplexities  in  which  the  wisest  of 
men  have  been  involved  on  religious  and  moral  subjects,  will  wish  to 
find  at  length  an  infallible  guide,  and  will  examine  the  evidences  of  the 
Bible  with  an  anxious  desire  that  he  may  find  sufficient  reason  to  ac- 
knowledge their  Divine  authority  ;  and  he  will  feel,  that,  should  he  be 
disappointed,  he  has  met  with  a  painful  misfortune,  and  not  a  matter  for 
triumph.  If  this  temper  of  mind,  which  is  perfectly  consistent  with  full, 
and  even  severe  examination  of  the  claims  of  Scripture,  does  not  exist, 
the  person  destitute  of  it  is  neither  a  sincere  nor  an  earnest  inquirer  after 
truth. 

We  may  go  farther  and  say,  though  we  have  no  wish  to  prejudge  the 
argument,  that  if  the  person  examining  the  Holy  Scriptures  in  order  to 
ascertain  the  truth  of  their  pretensions  to  Divine  authority,  has  had  the 
means  of  only  a  general  acquaintance  with  their  contents,  he  ought,  if  a 
lover  of  virtue  as  well  as  truth,  to  be  predisposed  in  their  favour ;  and 
that,  if  he  is  not,  the  moral  state  of  his  heart  is  liable  to  great  suspicion. 
For  that  the  theological  system  of  the  Scriptures  is  in  favour  of  the 
highest  virtues,  cannot  be  denied.  It  both  prescribes  them,  and  affords 
the  strongest  possible  motives  to  their  cultivation.  Love  to  God,  and  to 
all  mankind  ;  meekness,  courtesy,  charity  ;  the  government  of  the  appe- 
tites and  affections  within  the  rules  of  temperance;  the  renunciation  of 
evil  imaginations,  and  sins  of  the  heart ;  exact  justice  in  all  our  deal- 
ings ; — these,  and  indeed  every  other  virtue,  civil,  social,  domestic,  and 
personal,  are  clearly  taught,  and  solemnly  commanded  :  and  it  might  be 
confidently  put  to  every  candid  person,  however  skeptical,  whether  the 
universal  observance  of  the  morality  of  the  Scriptures,  by  all  ranks  and 
nations,  would  not  produce  the  most  beneficial  changes  in  society,  and 
secure  universal  peace,  friendship,  and  happiness.  This  he  would  not 
deny  ;  this  has  been  acknowledged  by  some  infidel  writers  themselves  ; 
and  if  so, — if  after  all  the  bewildering  speculations  of  the  wisest  men  on 
religious  and  moral  subjects,  and  which,  as  we  have  seen,  led  to  nothing 
definite  and  influential,  a  book  is  presented  to  us  which  shows  what  virtue 
is,  and  the  means  of  attaining  it ;  which  enforces  it  by  sufficient  sanc- 
tions, and  points  every  individual  and  every  community  to  a  certain 
remedy  for  all  their  vices,  disorders,  and  miseries  ; — we  must  renounce 
all  title  to  be  considered  lovers  of  virtue  and  lovers  of  our  species,  if  we 


FIRST.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  107 

do  not  feel  ourselves  interested  in  the  establishment  of  its  claims  to 
Divine  authority  ;  and  because  we  love  virtue,  we  shall  wish  that  the 
proof  of  this  important  point  may  be  found  satisfactory.  This  surely 
is  the  temper  of  mind  we  ought  to  bring  to  such  an  inquiry  ;  and  the 
rejection  of  the  Scriptures  by  those  who  are  not  under  its  influence, 
is  rather  a  presumption  in  their  favour  than  a  consideration  which 
throws  upon  them  the  least  discredit. 

In  addition  to  the  proofs  which  have  been  given  of  the  necessity  ot 
a  revelation,  both  from  the  reason  of  things,  and  the  actual  circum- 
stances of  the  world,  it  has  been  established,  that  miracles  actually  per- 
formed, and  prophecies  really  uttered  and  clearly  accomplished,  are 
satisfactory  proofs  of  the  authority  of  a  communication  of  the  will  of 
God  through  the  agency  of  men.  We  have  however  stated,  that  in 
cases  where  we  are  not  witnesses  of  the  miracles,  and  auditors  of  the 
predictions,  but  obtain  information  respecting  them  from  some  record, 
we  must,  before  we  can  admit  the  force  of  the  argument  drawn  from 
them,  be  assured,  that  the  record  was  early  and  faithfully  made,  and  has 
been  uncorruptly  kept,  with  respect  to  the  miracles ;  and,  with  respect 
to  the  prophecies,  that  they  were  also  uttered  and  recorded  previously 
to  those  events  occurring  which  are  alleged  to  be  accomplishments  of 
them.  These  are  points  necessary  to  be  ascertained  before  it  is  worth 
the  trouble  to  inquire,  whether  the  alleged  miracles  have  any  claim  to 
be  considered  as  miraculous  in  a  proper  sense,  and  the  predictions  as 
revelations  from  an  omniscient,  and,  consequently,  a  Divine  Being. 

The  first  step  in  this  inquiry  is,  to  ascertain  the  existence,  age,  and 
actions,  of  the  leading  persons  mentioned  in  Scripture  as  the  instruments 
by  whom  it  is  professed  the  revelations  they  contain  were  made  known. 

With  respect  to  these  persons  it  is  not  necessary  that  our  attention 
should  be  directed  to  more  than  two,  Moses  and  Christ, — one  the 
reputed  agent  of  the  Mosaic,  the  other  the  author  of  the  Christian 
revelation  ;  because  the  evidence  which  establishes  their  existence  and 
actions,  and  the  period  of  both,  will  also  establish  all  that  is  stated  in 
the  same  records  as  to  the  subordinate  and  succeeding  agents. 

The  Biblical  record  states,  that  Moses  was  the  leader  and  legislator 
of  the  nation  of  the  Jews  near  sixteen  hundred  years  before  the  Chris- 
tian era,  according  to  the  common  chronology.  This  is  grounded  upon 
the  tradition  and  national  history  of  the  Jews;  and  it  is  certain,  that  so 
far  from  there  being  any  reason  to  doubt  the  fact,  much  less  to  suppose, 
with  an  extravagant  fancy  of  some  modern  infidels,  that  Moses  was  a 
mythological  personage,  the  very  same  principles  of  historical  evidence 
which  assure  us  of  the  truth  of  any  unquestioned  fact  of  profane  history, 
assure  us  of  the  truth  of  this.  It  cannot  be  doubted  but  that  the  Jews 
existed  very  anciently  as  a  nation.  It  is  equally  certain,  that  it  has 
been  an  uninterrupted  and  universally  received  tradition  among  them 


108  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

in  all  ages,  that  Moses  led  them  out  of  Egypt,  and  first  gave  them  their 
system  of  laws  and  religion.  The  history  of  that  event  they  have  in 
writing,  and  also  the  laws  attributed  to  him.  There  is  nothing  in  the 
leading  events  of  their  history  contradicted  by  remaining  authentic 
historical  records  of  those  nations  with  whom  they  were  geographi- 
cally and  politically  related,  to  support  any  suspicion  of  its  accuracy; 
and  as  their  institutions  must  have  been  established  and  enjoined  by 
some  political  authority,  and  bear  the  marks  of  a  systematic  arrange- 
ment, established  at  once,  and  not  growing  up  under  the  operation  of 
circumstances  at  distant  periods,  to  one  superior  and  commanding  mind 
they  are  most  reasonably  to  be  attributed.  The  Jews  refer  them  to 
Moses,  and  if  this  be  denied,  no  proof  can  be  offered  in  favour  of  any 
other  person  being  entitled  to  that  honour.  The  history  is  therefore 
uncontradicted  by  any  opposing  evidence,  and  can  only  be  denied  on 
some  principle  of  skepticism  which  would  equally  shake  the  founda- 
tions of  all  history  whatever. 

The  same  observations  may  be  made  as  to  the  existence  of  the 
Founder  of  the  Christian  religion.  In  the  records  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment he  is  called  Jesus  Christ,  because  he  professed  to  be  the  Messias 
predicted  in  the  Jewish  Scriptures,  and  was  acknowledged  as  such  by 
his  followers  ;  and  his  birth  is  fixed  upward  of  eighteen  centuries  ago. 
This  also  is  at  least  uncontradicted  testimony. .  The  Christian  religion 
exists,  and  must  have  had  an  author.  Like  the  institutions  of  Moses, 
it  bears  the  evidence  of  being  the  work  of  one  mind  ;  and,  as  a  theolo- 
gical system,  presents  no  indications  of  a  gradual  and  successive  ela- 
boration. There  was  a  time  when  there  was  no  such  religion  as  that 
of  Christianity,  and  when  pagan  idolatry  and  Judaism  universally  pre- 
vailed ;  it  follows,  that  there  once  flourished  a  teacher  to  whom  it  owed 
its  origin,  and  all  tradition  and  history  unite  in  their  testimony,  that 
that  lawgiver  was  Jesus  Christ.  No  other  person  has  ever  been  ad- 
duced, living  at  a  later  period,  as  the  founder  of  this  form  of  religion. 

To  the  existence,  and  the  respective  antiquity  ascribed  in  the  Scrip- 
tures to  the  founders  of  the  Jewish  and  Christian  religion,  many  ancient 
writers  give  ample  testimony ;  who  being  themselves  neither  of  the 
Jewish  nor  Christian  religion,  cannot  be  suspected  of  having  any  de- 
sign to  furnish  evidence  of  the  truth  of  either.  Manetho,  Cheremon, 
Apollonius,  and  Lysimachus,  beside  some  other  ancient  Egyptians, 
whose  histories  are  now  lost,  are  quoted  by  Josephus,  as  extant  in  his 
days  ;  and  passages  are  collected  from  them,  in  which  they  agree  that 
Moses  was  the  leader  of  the  Jews  when  they  departed  from  Egypt,  and 
the  founder  of  their  laws.  Strabo,  who  flourished  in  the  century  be- 
fore Christ,  (Geog.  1.  16,)  gives  an  account  of  the  law  of  Moses,  as 
forbidding  images,  and  limiting  Divine  worship  to  one  invisible  and 
universal  Being.    Justin,  a  Roman  historian,  in  his  36th  book  devotes 


FIRST.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  109 

* 

a  chapter  to  an  account  of  the  origin  of  the  Jews  ;  represents  them  as 
sprung  from  ten  sons  of  Israel,  and  speaks  of  Moses  as  the  commander 
of  the  Jews  who  went  out  of  Egypt,  of  the  institution  of  the  Sabbath, 
and  the  priesthood  of  Aaron.  Pliny  speaks  of  Moses  as  giving  rise 
to  a  sect  of  Magicians,  probably  with  reference  to  his  contest  with  the 
magicians  of  Egypt.  Tacitus  says,  "  Moses  gave  a  new  form  of  wor- 
ship to  the  Jews,  and  a  system  of  religious  ceremonies,  the  reverse  of 
every  thing  known  to  any  other  age  or  country."  Juvenal,  in  his 
14th  Satire,  mentions  Moses  as  the  author  of  a  volume,  which  was 
preserved  with  great  care  among  the  Jews,  by  which  the  worship  of 
images  and  eating  swine's  flesh  were  forbidden  ;  and  circumcision  and 
the  observation  of  the  Sabbath  strictly  enjoined.  Longinus  cites 
Moses  as  the  lawgiver  of  the  Jews,  and  praises  the  sublimity  of  his 
style  in  the  account  he  gives  of  the  creation.  The  Orphic  verses. 
which  are  very  ancient,  inculcate  the  worship  of  one  God,  as  recom  ■ 
mended  by  that  law  "  which  was  given  by  him  who  was  drawn  out  of 
the  water,  and  received  two  tables  of  stone  from  the  hand  of  God." — 
(Eus.  Prop.  Ev.  1.  13,  c.  xii.)  Diodorus  Siculus,  in  his  first  book, 
when  he  treats  of  those  who  consider  the  gods  to  be  the  authors  of 
their  laws,  adds,  "  Among  the  Jews  was  Moses,  who  called  God  by  the 
name  of  law,  Iao"  meaning  Jehovah.  Justin  Martyr  expressl;- 
says,  that  most  of  the  historians,  poets,  lawgivers,  and  philosophers 
of  the  Greeks,  mention  Moses  as  the  leader  and  prince  of  the  Jewish 
nation.  From  all  these  testimonies,  and  many  more  were  it  necessary 
might  be  adduced,  it  is  clear  that  it  was  as  commonly  received  among 
ancient  nations,  as  among  the  Jews  themselves,  that  Moses  was  the 
founder  and  lawgiver  of  the  Jewish  state. 

As  to  Christ,  it  is  only  necessary  to  give  the  testimony  of  two  his- 
torians, whose  antiquity  no  one  ever  thought  of  disputing.  Suetonius 
mentions  him  by  name,  and  says,  that  Claudius  expelled  from  Rome 
those  who  adhered  to  his  cause.  (6)  Tacitus  records  the  progress 
which  the  Christian  religion  had  made ;  the  violent  death  its  founder 
had  suffered  ;  that  he  flourished  under  the  reign  of  Tiberius ;  that  Pi- 
late was  then  procurator  of  Judea  ;  and  that  the  original  author  of  this 
profession  was  Christ.  (7)  Thus,  not  only  the  real  existence  of  the 
founder  of  Christianity,  but  the  period  in  which  he  lived  is  exactly  ascer. 
tained  from  writings,  the  genuineness  of  which  has  never  been  doubted, 

The  antiquity  of  the  Books  which  contain  the  history,  the  doc 
trines,  and  the  laws,  of  the  Jewish  and  the  Christian  lawgivers,  is  next 
to  be  considered,  and  the  evidence  is  not  less  satisfactory.     The  im- 

(6)  Judteos  impulsore  Christo  assidue  tumultuantes  Roma  expulit.  (Suet.  Edit 
Var.  p.  544.) 

(7)  Auctor  nominis  ejus  Christus,  qui  Tiberio  imperitante,  per  procuratorem 
Pontium  Pilatum  supplicio  affectus  erat.     (Annal.  1.  5.) 


11C  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PAIIT 

• 

portance  of  this  fact  in  the  argument  is  obvious.  If  the  writings  in 
question  were  made  at,  or  very  near,  the  time  in  which  the  miraculous 
acts  recorded  in  them  were  performed,  then  the  evidence  of  those 
events  having  occurred  is  rendered  the  stronger,  for  they  were  written 
at  the  time  when  many  were  still  living  who  might  have  contradicted 
the  narration  if  false ;  and  the  improbability  is  also  greater,  that,  in 
the  very  age  and  place  when  and  where  those  events  are  said  to  have 
been  performed,  any  writer  would  have  dared  to  run  the  hazard  of 
prompt,  certain,  and  disgraceful  detection.  It  is  equally  important  in 
the  evidence  of  prophecy ;  for  if  the  predictions  were  recorded  long 
before  the  events  which  accomplished  them  took  place,  then  the  only 
question  which  remains  is,  whether  the  accomplishment  is  satisfac- 
tory  ;  for  then  the  evidence  becomes  irresistible. 

With  respect  to  the  Scriptures  of  the  Old  Testament,  the  language 
in  which  they  are  written  is  a  strong  proof  of  their  antiquity.  The 
Hebrew  ceased  to  be  spoken  as  a  living  language  soon  after  the  Ba- 
bylonish captivity,  and  the  learned  agree  that  there  was  no  grammar 
made  for  the  Hebrew  till  many  ages  after.  The  difficulty  of  a  forgery, 
at  any  period  after  the  time  of  that  captivity,  is  therefore  apparent. 
Of  these  books  too  there  was  a  Greek  translation  made  about  two 
hundred  and  eighty-seven  years  before  the  Christian  era,  and  laid  up 
in  the  Alexandrian  library. 

Josephus  gives  a  catalogue  of  the  sacred  books  among  the  Jews,  in 
which  he  expressly  mentions  the  five  books  of  Moses,  thirteen  of  the 
Prophets,  four  of  Hymns  and  Moral  Precepts ;  and  if,  as  many  critics 
maintain,  Ruth  was  added  to  Judges,  and  the  Lamentations  of  Jere- 
miah to  his  Prophecies,  the  number  agrees  with  those  of  the  Old  Tes- 
tament as  it  is  received  at  the  present  day. 

The  Samaritans,  who  separated  from  the  Jews  many  hundred  years 
before  the  birth  of  Christ,  have  in  their  language  a  Pentateuch,  in  the 
main  exactly  agreeing  with  the  Hebrew;  and  the  pagan  writers  before 
cited,  with  many  others,  speak  of  Moses  not  only  as  a  lawgiver  and  a 
prince,  but  as  the  author  of  books  esteemed  sacred  by  the  Jews.  (8) 

If  the  writings  of  Moses  then  are  not  genuine,  the  forgery  must 
have  taken  place  at  a  very  early  period ;  but  a  few  considerations 
Will  show,  that  at  any  time  this  was  impossible. 

These  books  could  never  have  been  surreptitiously  put  forth  in  the 
name  of  Moses,  as  the  argument  of  Leslie  most  fully  proves  : — "  It  is 
impossible  that  those  books  should  have  been  received  as  his,  if  not 
written  by  him,  because  they  speak  of  themselves  as  delivered  by  Mo- 
ses, and  kept  in  the  ark  from  his  time :  •  And  it  came  to  pass  when 
Moses  had  made  an  end  of  writing  the  words  of  this  law  in  a  book  until 

(8)  See  note  A  at  tho  end  of  this  chapter,  for  a  larger  proof  of  the  above 
particulars. 


FIRST.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  1  i  1 

they  were  finished,  that  Moses  commanded  the  Levites  who  bore  the 
ark  of  the  covenant  of  the  Lord,  saying,  Take  the  book  of  the  law,  and 
put  it  in  the  side  of  the  ark  of  the  covenant  of  the  Lord  your  God,  that 
it  may  be  there  for  a  witness  against  thee,'  Deut.  xxxi,  24-26.  A  copy 
of  this  book  was  also  to  be  left  with  the  king  :  *  And  it  shall  be,  when 
he  sitteth  upon  the  throne  of  his  kingdom  that  he  shall  write  him  a  copy 
of  this  law  in  a  book  out  of  that  which  is  before  the  priests  the  Levites  ; 
and  it  shall  be  with  him,  and  he  shall  read  therein  all  the  days  of  his 
life,'  &c,  Deut.  xviii,  18.  This  book  of  the  law  thus  speaks  of  itself, 
not  only  as  a  history  or  relation  of  what  things  were  done,  but  as  the 
standing  and  municipal  law  and  statutes  of  the  nation  of  the  Jews,  bind- 
ing the  king  as  well  as  the  people.  Now  in  whatever  age  after  Moses 
this  book  may  be  supposed  to  have  been  forged,  it  was  impossible  that 
it  could  be  received  as  truth,  because  it  was  not  then  to  be  found  (as  it 
professed  to  be)  either  in  the  ark  or  with  the  king,  or  any  where  else ; 
for  when  first  invented,  every  body  must  know  that  they  had  never 
heard  of  it  before. 

"  Could  any  man,  now  at  this  day,  invent  a  book  of  statutes  or  acts 
of  parliament  for  England,  and  make  it  pass  upon  the  nation  as  the  only 
book  of  statutes  that  ever  they  had  known  ?  As  impossible  was  it  for 
the  books  of  Moses  (if  they  were  invented  in  any  age  after  Moses)  to 
have  been  received  for  what  they  declare  themselves  to  be,  viz.  the  sta- 
tutes and  municipal  law  of  the  nation  of  the  Jews :  and  to  have  per- 
suaded the  Jews,  that  they  had  owned  and  acknowledged  these  books, 
all  along  from  the  d.'ys  of  Moses,  to  that  day  in  which  they  were  first 
invented ;  that  is,  that  they  had  owned  them  before  they  had  ever  so 
much  as  heard  of  them.  Nay,  more,  the  whole  nation  must,  in  an  in- 
stant, forget  their  former  laws  and  government,  if  they  could  receive 
these  books  as  being  their  former  laws.  And  they  could  not  otherwise 
rrceive  them,  because  they  vouched  themselves  so  to  be.  Let  me  ask 
the  Deists  but  one  short  question  :  Was  there  ever  a  book  of  sham  laws, 
which  were  not  the  laws  of  the  nation,  palmed  upon  any  people,  since 
the  world  b^gan  1  If  not,  with  what  face  can  they  say  this  of  the  book 
of  laws  of  the  Jews?  Why  will  they  say  that  of  them  which  they 
confess  impossible  in  any  nation,  or  among  any  people  ? 

"  But  they  must  be  yet  more  unreasonable.  For  the  books  of  Moses  have 
a  farther  demonstration  of  their  truth  than  even  other  law  books  have  ; 
for  they  not  only  contain  the  laws,  but  give  a  historical  account  of  their 
institution,  and  the  practice  of  them  from  that  time  :  as  of  the  passover, 
in  memory  of  the  death  of  the  first  born  in  Egypt,  Num.  viii,  17,  18  : 
and  that  the  same  day,  all  the  first  born  of  Israel,  both  of  man  and 
beast,  were,  by  a  perpetual  law,  dedicated  to  God  :  and  the  Levites  taken 
for  all  the  first  born  of  the  children  of  Israel.  That  Aaron's  rod, 
which  budded,  was  kept  in  the  ark,  in  memory  of  the   rebellion,  and 


IV-i  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

wonderful  destruction  of  Korah,  Dathan,  and  Abiram  ;  and  for  the  con- 
firmation  of  the  priesthood  to  the  tribe  of  Levi.  As  likewise  the  pot  of 
manna,  in  memory  of  their  having  been  fed  with  it  forty  years  in  the 
wilderness.  That  the  brazen  serpent  was  kept  (which  remained  to  the 
days  of  Hezekiah,  2  Kings  xviii,  4,)  in  memory  of  that  wonderful 
deliverance,  by  only  looking  upon  it,  from  the  biting  of  the  fiery  serpents, 
Numbers  xxi,  9.  The  feast  of  pentecost,  in  memory  of k the  dreadful 
appearance  of  God  upon  Mount  Horeb,  &c. 

"  And  beside  these  remembrances  of  particular  actions  and  occur- 
rences, there  were  other  solemn  institutions  in  memory  of  their  deliver- 
ance out  of  Egypt,  in  the  general,  which  included  all  the  particulars. 
As  of  the  Sabbath,  Deut.  v,  15.  Their  daily  sacrifices  and  yearly  expia- 
tion; their  new  moons,  and  several  feasts  and  fasts.  So  that  there 
were  yearly,  monthly,  weekly,  daily  remembrances  and  recognitions  of 
these  things. 

"  And  not  only  so,  but  the  books  of  the  same  Moses  tell  us,  that  a  par- 
ticular tribe  (of  Levi)  was  appointed  and  consecrated  by  God  as  his 
priests ;  by  whose  hands,  and  none  other,  the  sacrifices  of  the  people 
were  to  be  offered,  and  these  solemn  institutions  to  be  celebrated. 
That  it  was  death  for  any  other  to  approach  the  altar.  That  their  high 
priest  wore  a  glorious  mitre,  and  magnificent  robes  of  God's  own  con- 
trivance, with  the  miraculous  Urim  and  Thummim  in  his  breastplate, 
whence  the  Divine  responses  were  given,  Num.  xxvii,  21.  That  at  his 
word  the  king  and  all  the  people  were  to  go  out,  and  to  come  in.  That 
these  Levites  were  likewise  the  chief  judges  even  in  all  civil  causes, 
and  that  it  was  death  to  resist  their  sentence,  Deut.  xvii,  8-13 ;  1  Chron. 
xxiii,4.  Now  whenever  it  can  be  supposed  that  these  books  of  Moses  were 
forged  in  some  ages  after  Moses,  it  is  impossible  they  could  have  been 
received  as  true,  unless  the  forgers  could  have  made  the  whole  nation 
believe,  that  they  had  received  these  books  from  their  fathers,  had  been 
instructed  in  them  when  they  were  children,  and  had  taught  them  to  their 
children  ;  moreover,  that  they  had  all  been  circumcised,  and  did  circum- 
cise their  children,  in  pursuance  to  what  was  commanded  in  these  books  : 
that  they  had  observed  the  yearly  passover,  the  weekly  Sabbath,  the  new 
moons,  and  all  these  several  feasts,  fasts,  and  ceremonies,  commanded  in 
these  books  :  that  they  had  never  eaten  any  swine's  flesh,  or  other  meats 
prohibited  in  these  books  :  that  they  had  a  magnificent  tabernacle,  with 
a  visible  priesthood  to  administer  in  it,  which  was  confined  to  the  tribe 
of  Levi ;  over  whom  was  placed  a  glorious  high  priest,  clothed  with 
great  and  mighty  prerogatives,  whose  death  only  could  deliver  those  that 
were  fled  to  the  cities  of  refuge,  Num.  xxxv,  25,  28.  And  that  these 
priests  were  their  ordinary  judges,  even  in  civil  matters  :  I  say,  was  it 
possible  to  have  persuaded  a  whole  nation  of  men,  that  they  had  known 
and  practised  all  these  things  if  they  had  not  done  it  ?  or,  secondly,  to 


FIRST.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  113 

have  received  a  book  for  truth,  which  said  they  had  practised  them, 
and  appealed  to  that  practice  ? 

"  But  now  let  us  descend  to  the  utmost  degree  of  supposition,  viz. 
that  these  things  were  practised,  before  these  books  of  Moses  were 
forged ;  and  that  those  books  did  only  impose  upon  the  nation,  in  making 
them  believe  that  they  had  kept  these  observances  in  memory  of  such 
and  such  things  as  were  inserted  in  those  books. 

"  Well  then,  let  us  proceed  upon  this  supposition,  (however  groundless,); 
and  now,  will  not  the  same  impossibilities  occur,  as  in  the  former  case  ? 
For,  first,  this  must  suppose  that  the  Jews  kept  all  these  observances  in 
memory  of  nothing,  or  without  knowing  any  thing  of  their  original,  or 
the  reason  why  they  kept  them.  Whereas  these  very  observances  did 
express  the  ground  and  reason  of  their  being  kept,  as  the  passover,  in 
memory  of  God's  passing  over  the  children  of  the  Israelites,  in  that 
night  wherein  he  slew  all  the  first  born  of  Egypt,  and  so  of  the  rest. 

"  But,  secondly,  let  us  suppose,  contrary  both  to  reason  and  matter  of 
fact,  that  the  Jews  did  not  know  any  reason  at  all  why  they  kept  these 
observances ;  yet  was  it  possible  to  put  it  upon  them — that  they  had 
kept  tnese  observances  in  memory  of  what  they  had  never  heard  of 
before  that  day,  whensoever  you  will  suppose  that  these  books  of  Moses 
were  first  forged  ?  For  example,  suppose  I  should  now  forge  some 
romantic  story  of  strange  things  done  a  thousand  years  ago ;  and,  in 
confirmation  of  this,  should  endeavour  to  persuade  the  Christian  world 
that  they  had  all  along,  from  that  day  to  this,  kept  the  first  day  of  tho 
week  in  memory  of  such  a  hero,  an  Apollonius,  a  Barcosbas,  or  a 
Mohammed ;  and  had  all  been  baptized  in  his  name ;  and  swore  by 
his  name,  and  upon  that  very  book  (which  I  had  then  forged,  and  which 
they  never  saw  before,)  in  their  public  judicatures  ;  that  this  book  was 
their  Gospel  and  law,  which  they  had  ever  since  that  time,  these  thou- 
sand years  past,  universally  received  and  owned,  and  none  other.  I 
would  ask  any  Deist,  whether  he  thinks  it  possible  that  such  a  cheat 
could  pass,  or  such  a  legend  be  received  as  the  Gospel  of  Christians  t 
and  that  they  could  be  made  believe  that  they  never  had  any  other 
Gospel  ? 

"  Let  me  give  one  very  familiar  example  more  in  this  case.  There 
is  the  Stonehenge  in  Salisbury  Plain,  every  body  knows  it ;  and  yet  none 
knows  the  reason  why  those  great  stones  were  set  there,  or  by  whom, 
or  in  memory  of  what. 

"Now,  suppose  I  should  write  a  book  to-morrow,  and  tell  them  that 
these  stones  were  set  up  by  Hercules,  Polyphemus,  or  Garagantua,  in 
memory  of  such  and  such  of  their  actions.  And  for  a  farther  con- 
firmation of  this,  should  say  in  this  book,  that  it  was  written  at  the  time 
when  such  actions  were  done,  and  by  the  very  actors  themselves,  or- 
eye  witnesses.     And  that  this  book  had  been  received  as  truth,  and 

Vol.   I.  8 


114  THEOLOGICAL   INSTITUTES.  [PART 

quoted  by  authors  of  the  greatest  reputation  in  all  ages  since.  More- 
over  that  this  book  was  well  known  in  England,  and  enjoined  by  act  of 
parliament  to  be  taught  our  children,  and  that  we  did  teach  it  to  our 
children,  and  had  been  taught  it  ourselves  when  we  were  children.  I 
ask  any  Deist,  whether  he  thinks  this  could  pass  upon  England  ?  and 
whether,  if  I,  or  any  other  should  insist  upon  it,  we  should  not,  instead 
of  being  believed,  be  sent  to  Bedlam  ? 

"  Now,  let  us  compare  this  with  the  Stonehenge,  as  I  may  call  it,  or 
twelve  great  stones  set  up  at  Gilgal,  which  is  told  in  the  fourth  chapter 
of  Joshua.  There  it  is  said,  verse  6,  that  the  reason  why  they  were 
set  up  was,  that  when  their  children  in  after  ages,  should  ask  the  mean- 
ing of  it,  it  should  be  told  them. 

"  And  the  thing  in  memory  of  which  they  were  set  up,  was  such  as 
could  not  possibly  be  imposed  upon  that  nation,  at  that  time  when  it  was 
uaid  to  be  done ;  it  was  as  wonderful  and  miraculous  as  their  passage 
through  the  Red  Sea. 

"  For  notice  was  given  to  the  Israelites  the  day  before,  of  this  great 
miracle  to  be  done,  Josh,  iii,  5.  It  was  done  at  noon-day  before  the 
whole  nation.  And  when  the  waters  of  Jordan  were  divided,  it  was  not 
at  any  low  ebb,  but  at  the  time  when  that  river  overflowed  all  his  banks, 
verse  15.  And  it  was  done,  not  by  winds,  or  in  length  of  time  which 
winds  must  take  to  do  it ;  but  all  on  the  sudden,  as  soon  as  the  '  feet  of 
the  priests  that  bare  the  ark  were  dipped  in  the  brim  of  the  water,  then 
the  waters  which  came  down  from  above,  stood  and  rose  up  upon  a 
heap,  very  far  from  the  city  Adam,  that  is  beside  Zaretan  ;  and  those 
that  came  down  toward  the  sea  of  the  plain,  even  the  Salt  sea,  failed, 
and  were  cut  off:  and  the  people  passed  over,  right  against  Jericho. 
The  priests  stood  in  the  midst  of  Jordan  till  all  the  armies  of  Israel  had 
passed  over.  And  it  came  to  pass,  when  the  priests  that  bare  the  ark  of 
the  covenant  of  the  Lord  were  come  up  out  of  the  midst  of  Jordan,  and 
the  soles  of  the  priests'  feet  were  lift  up  upon  the  dry  land,  that  the 
waters  of  Jordan  returned  into  their  place,  and  flowed  over  all  his 
banks  as  they  did  before.  And  the  people  came  out  of  Jordan  on  the 
tenth  day  of  the  first  month,  and  encamped  in  Gilgal  on  the  east  border 
of  Jericho,  and  those  twelve  stones  which  they  took  out  of  Jordan  did 
Joshua  pitch  in  Gilgal.  And  he  spake  unto  the  children  of  Israel,  say- 
ing, When  your  children  shall  ask  their  fathers  in  time  to  come,  saying, 
What  mean  these  stones  ?  Then  shall  ye  let  your  children  know,  saying, 
Israel  came  over  this  Jordan  on  dry  land.  For  the  Lord  your  God  dried 
up  the  waters  of  Jordan  from  before  you,  until  ye  were  passed  over ;  as 
the  Lord  your  God  did  to  the  Red  Sea,  which  he  dried  up  from  before 
as,  until  we  were  gone  over,  that  all  the  people  of  the  earth  might  know 
the  hand  of  the  Lord,  that  it  is  mighty  :  that  ye  might  fear  the  Lord 
your  God  for  ever.'  Chap,  iv,  from  verse  18. 


FIRST.]  THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES.  115 

"  Now,  to  form  our  argument,  let  us  suppose  that  there  never  was 
any  such  thing  as  that  passage  over  Jordan  ;  that  these  stones  at  Gilgal 
were  set  up  upon  some  other  occasion,  in  some  after  age ;  and  then,  that 
some  designing  man  invented  this  book  of  Joshua,  and  said  that  it  was 
written  by  Joshua  at  that  time,  and  gave  this  stonage  at  Gilgal,  for  a 
testimony  of  the  truth  of  it ;  would  not  every  body  say  to  him,  We  know 
the  stonage  at  Gilgal,  but  we  never  heard  before  of  this  reason  for  it, 
nor  of  this  book  of  Joshua.  Where  has  it  been  all  this  while  1  And 
where,  and  how  came  you,  after  so  many  ages,  to  find  it  ?  Beside,  this 
book  tells  us,  that  this  passage  over  Jordan  was  ordained  to  be  taught 
our  children,  from  age  to  age  ;  and,  therefore,  that  they  were  always  to 
be  instructed  in  the  meaning  of  that  stonage  at  Gilgal,  as  a  memorial  of 
it.  But  we  were  never  taught  it,  when  we  were  children  ;  nor  did  ever 
teach  our  children  any  such  thing.  And  it  is  not  likely  that  it  could 
have  been  forgotten,  while  so  remarkable  a  stonage  did  continue,  which 
was  set  up  for  that  and  no  other  end ! 

"  And  if,  for  the  reasons  before  given,  no  such  imposition  could  be 
put  upon  us  as  to  the  stonage  in  Salisbury  Plain  ;  how  much  less  could 
it  be  to  the  stonage  at  Gilgal  1 

"  And  if,  where  we  know  not  the  reason  of  a  bare  naked  monument, 
such  a  sham  reason  cannot  be  imposed,  how  much  more  is  it  impossible 
to  impose  upon  us  in  actions  and  observances,  which  we  celebrate  in 
memory  of  particular  passages  ?  How  impossible  to  make  us  forget  those 
passages  which  we  daily  commemorate ;  and  persuade  us  that  we  had 
always  kept  such  institutions  in  memory  of  what  we  never  heard  of 
before ;  that  is,  that  we  knew  it  before  we  knew  it !" 

This  able  reasoning  has  never  been  refuted,  nor  can  be ;  and  if  the 
books  of  the  law  must  have  been  written  by  Moses,  it  is  as  easy  to  prove 
that  Moses  himself  could  not  in  the  nature  of  the  thing  have  deceived 
the  people  by  an  imposture,  and  a  pretence  of  miraculous  attestations, 
in  order,  like  some  later  lawgivers  among  the  heathens,  to  bring  the 
people  more  willingly  to  submit  to  his  institutions.  The  very  instances 
of  miracle  he  gives,  rendered  this  impossible.  "  Suppose,"  says  the 
same  writer,  "  any  man  should  pretend,  that  yesterday  he  divided  the 
Thames,  in  presence  of  all  the  people  of  London,  and  carried  the  whole 
city,  men,  women,  and  children,  over  to  Southwark,  on  dry  land,  the 
waters  standing  like  walls  on  both  sides  :  I  say,  it  is  morally  impossible 
that  he  could  persuade  the  people  of  London,  that  this  was  true,  when 
every  man,  woman,  and  child,  could  contradict  him,  and  say,  that  this 
was  a  notorious  falsehood,  for  that  they  had  not  seen  the  Thames  so 
divided,  nor  had  gone  over  on  dry  land. 

"  As  to  Moses,  I  suppose  it  will  be  allowed  me,  that  he  could  not  have 
persuaded  600,000  men,  that  he  had  brought  them  out  of  Egypt,  through 
the  Red  Sea ;  fed  them  forty  years,  without  bread,  by  miraculous  manna, 


116  THEOLOGICAL   INSTITUTES.  [PART 

and  the  other  matters  of  fact,  recorded  in  his  books,  if  they  had  not 
been  true.  Because  every  man's  senses  that  was  then  alive  must  have 
contradicted  it.  And  therefore  he  must  have  imposed  upon  all  their 
senses,  if  he  could  have  made  them  believe  it,  when  it  was  false  and 
no  such  things  done. 

"  From  the  same  reason,  it  was  equally  impossible  for  him  to  have 
made  them  receive  his  five  books  as  truth,  and  not  to  have  rejected 
them  as  a  manifest  imposture,  which  told  of  all  these  things  as  done 
before  their  eyes,  if  they  had  not  been  so  done.  See  how  positively  he 
speaks  to  them,  Deut.  xi,  2,  to  verse  8  :  '  And  know  you  this  day,  for  1 
speak  not  with  your  children,  which  have  not  known,  and  which  have 
not  seen  the  chastisement  of  the  Lord  your  God,  his  greatness,  his 
mighty  hand,  and  his  stretched-out  arm,  and  his  miracles,  and  his  acts, 
which  he  did  in  the  midst  of  Egypt,  unto  Pharaoh  the  king  of  Egypt, 
and  unto  all  his  land,  and  what  he  did  unto  the  army  of  Egypt,  unto  their 
horses,  and  to  their  chariots ;  how  he  made  the  water  of  the  Red  Sea 
to  overflow  them  as  they  pursued  after  you ;  and  how  the  Lord  hath 
destroyed  them  unto  this  day  :  And  what  he  did  unto  you  in  the  wilder- 
ness, until  ye  came  unto  this  place  ;  and  what  he  did  unto  Dathan  and 
Abiram,  the  sons  of  Eliah,  the  son  of  Reuben,  how  the  earth  opened  her 
mouth  and  swallowed  them  up,  and  their  households,  and  their  tents,  and 
all  the  substance  that  was  in  their  possession,  in  the  midst  of  all  Israel. 
But  your  eyes  have  seen  all  the  great  acts  of  the  Lord,  which  he 
did,'  &c. 

"  From  hence  we  must  suppose  it  impossible  that  these  books  of 
Moses  (if  an  imposture)  could  have  been  invented  and  put  upon  the 
people  who  were  then  alive  when  all  these  things  were  said  to  be  done." 

By  these  arguments  (9)  the  genuineness  and  authenticity  of  the  books 
of  Moses  are  established  ;  and  as  to  those  of  the  prophets,  which,  with 
some  predictions  in  the  writings  of  Moses,  comprise  the  prophetic 
branch  o*f  the  evidence  of  the  Divine  authority  of  the  revelations  they 
contain,  it  can  be  proved  both  from  Jewish  tradition,  the  list  of  Josephus, 
the  Greek  translation,  and  from  their  being  quoted  by  ancient  writers, 
that  they  existed  many  ages  before  several  of  those  events  occurred,  to 
which  we  shall  refer  in  the  proper  place  as  eminent  and  unequivocal 
instances  of  prophetic  accomplishment.    This  part  of  the  argument  will 

(9)  The  reasoning  of  Leslie,  so  incontrovertible  ns  to  the  four  last  books  of 
the  Pentateuch,  does  not  so  fully  apply  to  the  book  of  Genesis.  Few,  however, 
will  dispute  the  genuineness  of  this,  if  that  of  the  other  books  of  Moses  be  con- 
ceded. That  the  book  of  Genesis  must  have  been  written  prior  to  the  other  books 
of  the  Pentateuch  is,  however,  certain,  for  Exodus  constantly  refers  to  events 
nowhere  recorded  but  in  the  book  of  Genesis ;  and  without  the  book  of  Genesis, 
the  abrupt  commencement  of  Exodus  woi  Id  have  been  as  unintelligible  to  the 
Jews  as  it  would  be  to  us.  The  Pentateu  h  must  therefore  bo  considered  as  ono 
book,  under  five  divisions,  having  a  mutual   :oherence  and  dependence. 


FIRST.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  117 

therefore  be  also  sufficiently  established  :  the  prophecy  will  be  shown  to 
have  been  delivered  long  before  the  event,  and  the  event  will  be  proved 
to  be  a  fulfilment  of  the  prophecy.  A  more  minute  examination  of  the 
date  of  the  prophetic  books  rather  belongs  to  those  who  write  expressly 
on  the  canon  of  Scripture. 

The  same  author  from  whom  we  have  already  largely  quoted,  (Leslie,) 
applies  his  celebrated  four  rules  for  determining  the  truth  of  matters  of 
fact  in  general,  with  equal  force  to  the  facts  of  the  Gospel  history  as  to 
those  contained  in  the  Mosaic  writings.  The  rules  are,  "  1.  That  the 
matter  of  fact  be  such,  as  that  men's  outward  senses,  their  eyes  and  ears, 
may  be  judges  of  it. — 2.  That  it  be  done  publicly  in  the  face  of  the 
world. — 3.  That  not  only  public  monuments  be  kept  up  in  memory  of 
it,  but  some  outward  actions  be  performed. — 4.  That  such  monuments 
and  such  actions  and  observances  be  instituted,  and  do  commence  from 
the  time  that  the  matter  of  fact  was  done." 

We  have  seen  the  manner  in  which  these  rules  are  applied  to  the 
books  of  Moses.     The  author  thus  applies  them  to  the  Gospel : — 

"  I  come  now  to  show,  that  as  in  the  matters  of  fact  of  Moses,  so 
likewise  all  these  four  marks  do  meet  in  the  matters  of  fact  which  are 
recorded  in  the  Gospel  of  our  blessed  Saviour.  And  my  ,work  herein 
will  be  the  shorter,  because  all  that  is  said  before  of  Moses  and  his  books, 
is  every  way  as  applicable  to  Christ  and  his  Gospel.  His  works  and 
his  miracles  are  there  said  to  be  done  publicly  in  the  face  of  the  world, 
as  he  argued  to  his  accusers,  f  I  spake  openly  to  the  world,  and  in  secret 
have  I  said  nothing,'  John  xviii,  20.  It  is  told,  Acts  ii;  41,  that  three 
thousand  at  one  time,'and  Acts  iv,  4,  that  above  five  thousand  at  ano 
ther  time,  were  converted  upon  conviction  of  what  themselves  had  seen, 
what  had  been  done  publicly  before  their  eyes,  wherein  it  was  impossible 
to  have  imposed  upon  them.  Therefore  here  were  the  two  first  rules 
before  mentioned. 

"  Then  for  the  two  second :  Baptism  and  the  Lord's  Supper  w  ere 
instituted  as  perpetual  memorials  of  these  things ;  and  they  were  not 
instituted  in  after  ages,  but  at  the  very  time  when  these  things  were  said 
to  be  done ;  and  have  been  observed  without  interruption,  in  all  ages 
through  the  whole  Christian  world,  dow*n  all  the  way  from  that  time  to 
this.  And  Christ  himself  did  ordain  apostles  and  other  ministers  of  his 
Gospel,  to  preach  and  administer  the  sacraments ;  and  to  govern  his 
Church  :  and  that  always,  even  unto  the  end  of  the  world,  Matt,  xviii, 
20.  Accordingly,  they  have  continued  by  regular  succession  to  this 
day  :  and  no  doubt  ever  shall  while  the  earth  shall  last.  So  that  the 
Christian  clergy  are  as  notorious  a  matter  of  fact,  as  the  tribe  of  Levi 
among  the  Jews.  And  the  Gospel  is  as  much  a  law  to  the  Christians, 
as  the  book  of  Moses  to  the  Jews  :  and  it  being  part  of  the  matters  of 
act  related  in  the  Gospel,  that  such  an  order  of  men  were  appointee 


118  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

by  Christ,  and  to  continue  to  the  end  of  the  world  ;  consequently,  if  the 
Gospel  was  a  fiction,  and  invented  (as  it  must  be)  in  some  ages  after 
Christ ;  then,  at  that  time  when  it  was  first  invented,  there  could  be  no 
such  order  of  clergy,  as  derived  themselves  from  the  institution  of  Christ ; 
which  must  give  the  lie  to  the  Gospel,  and  demonstrate  the  whole  to  be 
false.  And  the  matters  of  fact  of  Christ  being  pressed  to  be  true,  no 
otherwise  than  as  there  was  at  that  time,  (whenever  the  Deists  will  sup- 
pose  the  Gospel  to  be  forged,)  not  only  public  sacraments  of  Christ's 
institution,  but  an  order  of  clergy,  likewise,  of  his  appointment  to  ad- 
minister  them  :  and  it  being  impossible  there  could  be  any  such  things 
before  they  were  invented,  it  is  as  impossible  that  they  should  be  re- 
ceived when  invented.  And  therefore,  by  what  was  said  above,  it  was 
as  impossible  to  have  imposed  upon  mankind  in  this  matter,  by  invent- 
ing of  it  in  after  ages,  as  at  the  time  when  those  things  were  said  to 
be  done. 

"  The  matters  of  fact  of  Mohammed,  or  what  is  fabled  of  the  heathen 
deities,  do  all  want  some  of  the  aforesaid  four  rules,  whereby  the  cer- 
tainty of  matters  of  fact  is  demonstrated.  First,  for  Mohammed,  he 
pretended  to  no  miracles,  as  he  tells  us  in  his  Alcoran,  c.  6,  &c ;  and 
those  which  are  commonly  told  of  him  pass  among  the  Mohammedans 
themselves  but  as  legendary  fables ;  and,  as  such,  are  rejected  by  the 
wise  and  learned  among  them  :  as  the  legends  of  their  saints  are  in  the 
Church  of  Rome.     See  Dr.  Prideaux's  Life  of  Mohammed,  page  34. 

"  But,  in  the  next  place,  those  which  are  told  of  him  do  all  want  the 
two  first  rules  before  mentioned.  For  his  pretended  converse  with 
the  rnoon ;  his  Mersa,  or  night  journey  from  Mecca  to  Jerusalem, 
and  thence  to  heaven,  &c,  were  not  performed  before  any  body.  We 
have  only  his  own  word  for  them.  And  they  are  as  groundless  as  the 
delusions  of  the  Fox  or  Muggleton  among  ourselves.  The  same  is 
to  be  said  (in  the  second  place)  of  the  fables  of  the  heathen  gods,  of 
Mercury's  stealing  sheep,  Jupiter's  turning  himself  into  a  bull,  and  the 
like ;  beside  the  folly  and  unworthiness  of  such  senseless  pretended 
miracles. 

"  It  is  true  the  heathen  deities  had  their  priests  :  they  had  likewise 
feasts,  games,  and  other  public  institutions  in  memory  of  them.  But  all 
these  want  the  fourth  mark,  viz.  that  such  priesthood  and  institutions 
should  commence  from  the  time  that  such  things  as  they  commemorate 
were  said  to  be  done ;  otherwise  they  cannot  secure  after  ages  from 
the  imposture,  by  detecting  it,  at  the  time  when  first  invented,  as  hath 
been  argued  before.  But  the  Bacchanalia,  and  other  heathen  feasts, 
were  instituted  many  ages  after  what  was  reported  of  these  gods  was 
said  to  be  done,  and  therefore  can  be  no  proof.  And  the  priests  of 
Bacchus,  Apollo,  <kc,  were  not  ordained  by  these  supposed  gods ;  but 
were  appointed  by  others,  in  after  ages,  only  in  honour  to  them.     And 


riRST.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  110 

therefore  these  orders  of  priests  are  no  evidence  to  the  matters  of  fact 
which  are  reported  of  their  gods. 

"Now  to  apply  what  has  been  said.  You  may  challenge  all  the 
Deists  in  the  world  to  show  any  action  that  is  fabulous,  which  ha* 
all  the  four  rules  or  marks  before  mentioned.  No,  it  is  impossible. 
And  (to  resume  a  little  what  is  spoken  to  before)  the  histories  of  Ex- 
odus and  the  Gospel  never  could  have  been  received,  if  they  had  not 
been  true  ;  because  the  institution  of  the  priesthood  of  Levi,  and  ol 
Christ ;  of  the  Sabbath,  the  Passover,  of  Circumcision,  of  Baptism, 
and  the  Lord's  Supper,  Ate,  are  there  related,  as  descending  all  the 
way  down  from  those  times,  without  interruption.  And  it  is  full  as 
impossible  to  persuade  men  that  they  had  been  circumcised  or  bap- 
tized, had  circumcised  or  baptized  their  children,  celebrated  passovers, 
sabbaths,  sacraments,  &c,  under  the  government  and  administration 
of  a  certain  order  of  priests,  if  they  had  done  none  of  these  things,  as 
to  make  them  believe  that  they  had  gone  through  seas  upon  dry  land, 
seen  the  dead  raised,  dec.  And  without  believing  these,  it  was  im- 
possible that  either  the  Law  or  the  Gospel  could  have  been  received. 

"  And  the  truth  of  the  matters  of  fact  of  Exodus  and  the  Gospel,  be- 
ing no  otherwise  pressed  upon  men,  than  as  they  have  practised  such 
public  institutions,  it  is  appealing  to  the  senses  of  mankind  for  the 
truth  of  them  ;  and  makes  it  impossible  for  any  to  have  invented  such 
stories  in  after  ages,  without  a  palpable  detection  of  the  cheat  when  first 
invented ;  as  impossible  as  to  have  imposed  upon  the  senses  of  mankind, 
at  the  time  when  such  public  matters  of  fact  were  said  to  be  done."  (1) 

But  other  evidence  of  the  truth  of  the  Gospel  history,  beside  that 
which  arises  from  this  convincing  reasoning,  may  be  adduced. 

In  the  first  place,  the  narrative  of  the  evangelists,  as  to  the  action*, 
&c,  of  Christ,  cannot  be  rejected  without  renouncing  all  faith  in  his- 
tory, any  more  than  to  deny  that  he  really  existed. 

"  We  have  the  same  reason  to  believe  that  the  evangelists  have  given 
us  a  true  history  of  the  life  and  transactions  of  Jesus,  as  we  have  that 
Xenophon  and  Plato  have  given  us  a  faithful  and  just  narrative  of  the 
character  and  doctrines  of  the  excellent  Socrates.  The  sacred 
writers  were,  in  every  respect,  qualified  for  giving  a  real  circum- 
stantial detail  of  the  life  and  religion  of  the  person  whose  memoirs  they 
have  transmitted  down  to  us.  They  were  the  select  companions  and 
familiar  friends  of  the  hero  of  their  story.  They  had  free  and  liberal 
access  to  him  at  all  times.  They  attended  his  public  discourses,  and  in 
his  moments  of  retirement  he  unbosomed  his  whole  soul  to  them  without 
disguise.     They  were  daily  witnesses  of  his  sincerity  and  goodness  of 

(1)  See  Note  B  at  the  end  of  this  chapter,  in  which  the  same  kind  of  argument 
is  illustrated  by  the  miraculous  gift  of  tongues. 


120  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

heart.  They  were  spectators  of  the  amazing  operations  he  performed 
and  of  the  silent  unostentatious  manner  in  which  he  performed  them. 
In  private  he  explained  to  them  the  doctrines  of  his  religion  in  the  most 
familiar,  endearing  converse,  and  gradually  initiated  them  into  the  prin- 
ciples of  his  Gospel,  as  their  Jewish  prejudices  admitted.  Some  of 
these  writers  were  his  inseparable  attendants,  from  the  commencement 
of  his  public  ministry  to  his  death,  and  could  give  the  world  as  true  and 
faithful  a  narrative  of  his  character  and  instructions,  as  Xenophon  was 
enabled  to  publish  of  the  life  and  philosophy  of  Socrates.  If  Plato 
hath  been  in  every  respect  qualified  to  compose  an  historical  account 
of  the  behaviour  of  his  master  in  his  imprisonment ;  of  the  philosophic 
discourses  he  addressed  to  his  friends  before  he  drank  the  poisonous 
bowl ;  as  he  constantly  attended  him  in  those  unhappy  scenes ;  was 
present  at  those  mournful  interviews ;  (2) — in  like  manner  was  the 
Apostle  John  fitted  for  compiling  a  just  and  genuine  narration  of  the 
last  consolatory  discourses  our  Lord  delivered  to  his  dejected  followers, 
a  little  before  his  last  sufferings,  and  of  the  unhappy  exit  he  made,  with 
its  attendant  circumstances,  of  which  he  was  a  personal  spectator. 
The  foundation  of  these  things  cannot  be  invalidated,  without  invali- 
dating the  faith  of  history.  No  writers  have  enjoyed  more  propitious, 
few  have  ever  enjoyed  such  favourable  opportunities  for  publishing  just 
accounts  of  persons  and  things  as  the  evangelists.  Most  of  the  Greek 
and  Roman  historians  lived  long  after  the  persons  they  immortalize,  and 
the  events  they  record.  The  sacred  writers  commemorate  actions  they 
saw,  discourses  they  heard,  persecutions  they  supported ;  describe  cha- 
racters with  which  they  were  familiarly  conversant,  and  transactions 
and  scenes  in  which  they  themselves  were  intimately  interested.  The 
pages  of  their  history  are  impressed  with  every  feature  of  credibility  : 
an  artless  simplicity  characterizes  all  their  writings.  Nothing  can  be 
farther  from  vain  ostentation  and  popular  applause.  No  studied  arts  to 
dress  up  a  cunningly  devised  fable.  No  vain  declamation  after  any 
miracle  of  our  Saviour  they  relate.  They  record  these  astonishing 
operations  with  the  same  dispassionate  coolness,  as  if  they  had  been 
common  transactions,  without  that  ostentatious  rhodomontade  which 
enthusiasts  and  impostors  universally  employ.  They  give  us  a  plain, 
unadorned  narration  of  these  amazing  feats  of  supernatural  power — 
saying  nothing  previously  to  raise  our  expectation,  or  after  their  per- 
formance breaking  forth  into  any  exclamation — but  leaving  the  reader 
to  draw  the  conclusion.  The  writers  of  these  books  are  distinguished 
above  all  the  authors  who  ever  wrote  accounts  of  persons  and  things, 

(2)  Quid  dicam  de  Socrate,  (says  Cicero,)  cujus  morti  illachrymari  soleo,  Pla. 
tonem  legens. — De  Natura  Deorum,  p.  329,  Edit.  Davies,  1723. — See  also  PuiTo'a 
Phado,  passim,  particularly  pages  311,  312. — Edit.  Forster,  Oion.  1741. 


FIRST.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES. 


12L 


for  their  sincerity  and  integrity.  Enthusiasts  and  impostors  never  pro- 
claim to  the  world  the  weakness  of  their  understanding,  and  the  defects 
of  their  character.    The  evangelists  honestly  acquaint  the  reader  with 
the  lowness  of  their  station,  the  indigence  of  their  circumstances,  the 
inveteracy  of  their  national  prejudices,  their  dullness  of  apprehension, 
their  weakness  of  faith,  their  ambitious  views,  and  the  warm  contentions 
they  agitated  among  themselves.     They  even  tell  us  how  they  basely 
deserted  their  Master,  by  a  shameful  precipitate  flight,  when  he  was 
seized  by  his  enemies  ;  and  that  after  his  crucifixion,  they  had  all  again 
returned  to  their  former  secular  employments — for  ever  resigning  all 
the  hopes  they  had  once  fondly  cherished,  and  abandoning  the  cause  in 
which  they  had  so  long  been  engaged,  notwithstanding  all  the  proofs 
which  had  been  exhibited,  and  the  conviction  they  had  before  enter- 
tained, that  Jesus  was  the  Messiah,  and  that  his  religion  was  from  God. 
A  faithful  picture  this,  held  up  to  the  reader,  for  him  to  contemplate  the 
true  features  of  the  writer's  mind.     Such  men  as  these  were  as  far  from 
being  deceived  themselves,  as  they  were  incapable  of  imposing  a  false- 
hood upon  others.     The  sacred  regard  they  had  for  truth  appears  in 
every  thing  they  relate.    They  mention,  with  many  affecting  circum- 
stances, the  obstinate,  unreasonable  incredulity  of  one  of  their  asso- 
ciates— not  convinced  but  by  ocular  and  sensible  demonstration.  They 
might  have  concealed  from  the  world  their  own  faults  and  follies — or  if 
they  had  chosen  to  mention  them,  might  have  alleged  plausible  reasons 
to  soften  and  extenuate  them.    But  they  related,  without  disguise,  events 
and  facts  just  as  they  happened,  and  left  them  to  speak  their  own  lan- 
guage. So  that  to  reject  a  history  thus  circumstanced,  and  impeach  the 
veracity  of  writers  furnished  with  these  qualifications  for  giving  the 
justest  accounts  of  personal  characters  and  transactions,  which  they 
enjoyed  the  best  opportunity  for  accurately  observing  and  knowing,  is 
an  affront  offered  to  the  reason  and  understanding  of  mankind  ;  a  sole- 
cism against  the  laws  of  truth  and  history,  which  would,  with  equal  rea- 
son, lead  men  to  disbelieve  every  thing  related  in  Herodotus,  Thucy- 
dides,  Diodorus  Siculus,  Livy,  and  Tacitus  ;  to  confound  all  history 
with  fable  and  fiction  ;  truth  with  falsehood,  and  veracity  with  impos- 
ture ;  and  not  to  credit  any  thing  how  well  soever  attested  ; — that  there 
were  such  kings  as  the  Stuarts,  or  such  places  as  -Paris  and  Rome, 
because  we  are  not  indulged  with  ocular  conviction  of  them.  The  truth 
of  the  Gospel  history  [independent  of  the  question  of  the  inspiration  of 
the  sacred  writers]  rests  upon  the  same  basis  with  the  truth  of  other 
ancient  books,  and  its  pretensions  are  to  be  impartially  examined  by  the 
same  rules  by  which  we  judge  of  the  credibility  of  all  other  historical 
monuments.     And  if  we  compare  the  merit  of  the  sacred  writers,  as 
historians,  with  that  of  other  writers,  we  shall  be  convinced,  that  they 
are  inferior  to  none  who  ever  wrote,  either  with  regard  to  knowledge  of 


122  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

persons,  acquaintance  with  facts,  candour  of  mind,  and  reverence  for 
truth."     (Harwood's  Introduction  to  the  New  Testament.) 

A  second  source  of  evidence  to  the  truth  of  the  history  of  the  evan- 
gelists, may  be  brought  from  the  testimonies  of  adversaries  and  hea- 
thens to  the  leading  facts  which  they  record. 

No  public  contradiction  of  this  history  was  ever  put  forth  by  the 
Jewish  rulers  to  stop  the  progress  of  a  hateful  religion,  though  they  had 
every  motive  to  contradict  it,  both  in  justification  of  themselves,  who 
were  publicly  charged  as  "  murderers"  of  the  "  Just  One,"  and  to  pre- 
serve the  people  from  the  infection  of  the  spreading  delusion.  No  such 
contradiction  has  been  handed  down,  and  none  is  adverted  to  or  quoted 
by  any  ancient  writer.  This  silence  is  not  unimportant  evidence  ; 
but  the  direct  testimonies  to  the  facts  are  numerous  and  important. 

We  have  already  quoted  the  testimonies  of  Tacitus  and  Suetonius 
to  the  existence  of  Jesus  Christ,  the  Founder  of  the  Christian  religion, 
•and  of  his  crucifixion  in  the  reign  of  Tiberius,  and  during  the  procu- 
ratorship  of  Pontius  Pilate,  the  time  in  which  the  evangelists  place 
that  event.  Other  references  to  heathen  authors,  who  incidentally 
allude  to  Christ,  his  religion,  and  followers,  might  be  given  ;  such  as 
Martial,  Juvenal,  Epictetus,  Trajan,  the  younger  Pliny,  Adrian,  Apu- 
leius,  Lucian  of  Samosata,  and  others  ;  some  of  whom  also  afford  tes- 
timonies to  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  at  the  time,  and  in  the  cir- 
cumstances predicted  by  our  Saviour,  and  to  the  antiquity  and  genu- 
ineness of  the  books  of  the  New  Testament.  But  as  it  is  well  ob- 
served by  the  learned  Lardner,  in  his  "  Collection  of  Jewish  and  Hea- 
then Testimonies,"  (vol.  iv,  p.  330,)  "  Among  all  the  testimonies  to 
Christianity  which  we  have  met  with  in  the  first  ages,  none  are  more 
valuable  and  important  than  the  testimonies  of  those  learned  philoso- 
phers who  wrote  against  us ;  Celsus,  in  the  second  century,  Por- 
phyry and  Hierocles  in  the  third,  and  Julian  in  the  fourth."  Re- 
ferring to  Lardner  for  full  information  on  this  point,  a  brief  exhibi- 
tion of  the  admissions  of  these  adversaries  will  be  satisfactory. 

Celsus  wrote  against  Christianity  not  much  above  one  hundred 
and  thirty  years  after  our  Lord's  ascension,  and  his  books  were  an- 
swered by  the  celebrated  Origen.  The  following  is  a  summary  of 
the  references  of  this  writer  to  the  Gospel  history,  by  Leland.  (Answer 
to  Christianity  as  old  as  the  Creation,  vol.  ii,  c.  5.)  The  passages  at 
large  may  be  seen  in  Lardner's  Testimonies. 

Celsus,  a  most  bitter  enemy  of  Christianity,  who  began  in  the  second 
century,  produces  many  passages  out  of  the  Gospels.  He  represents 
Jesus  to  have  lived  but  a  few  years  ago.  He  mentions  his  being  born 
of  a  virgin;  the  angel's  appearing  to  Joseph  on  occasion  of  Mary's 
being  with  child  ;  the  star  that  appeared  at  his  birth  ;  the  wise  men  that 
came  to  worship  him  when  an  infant ;  and  Herod's  massacreing  the 


FIRST.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  123 

children ;  Joseph's  fleeing  with  the  child  into  Egypt  by  the  admoni- 
tion of  an  angel ;  the  Holy  Ghost  descending  on  Jesus  like  a  dove 
when  he  was  baptized  by  John,  and  the  voice  from  heaven  declaring 
him  to  be  the  Son  of  God ;  his  going  about  with  his  disciples,  his  heal- 
ing  the  sick  and  lame,  and  raising  the  dead  ;  his  foretelling  his  own 
sufferings  and  resurrection ;  his  being  betrayed  and  forsaken  by  his 
own  disciples ;  his  suffering  both  of  his  own  accord  and  in  obedience 
to  his  heavenly  Father  ;  his  grief  and  trouble,  and  his  praying,  Father, 
if  it  be  possible,  let  this  cup  pass  from  me!  the  ignominious  treatment 
he  met  with  ;  the  robe  that  was  put  upon  him,  the  crown  of  thorns, 
the  reed  put  into  his  hand ;  his  drinking  vinegar  and  gall,  and  his  be- 
ing scourged  and  crucified ;  his  being  seen  after  his  resurrection  by  a 
fanatical  woman,  (as  he  calls  her,  meaning  Mary  Magdalene,)  and  by 
his  own  companions  and  disciples ;  his  showing  them  his  hands  that 
were  pierced,  the  marks  of  his  punishment.  He  also  mentions  the 
angels  being  seen  at  his  sepulchre,  and  that  some  said  it  was  one  an- 
gel, others,  that  it  was  two  ;  by  which  he  hints  at  the  seeming  varia- 
tion in  the  accounts  given  of  it  by  the  evangelists. 

"  It  is  true,  he  mentions  all  these  things  only  with  a  design  to  ridicule 
and  expose  them.  But  they  furnish  us  with  an  uncontested  proof,  that 
the  Gospel  was  then  extant.  Accordingly  he  expressly  tells  the  Chris- 
tians, These  things  we  have  produced  out  of  your  own  writings,  p.  106. 
And  he  all  along  supposeth  them  to  have  been  written  by  Christ's  own 
disciples,  that  lived  and  conversed  with  him  ;  though  he  pretends  they 
feigned  many  things  for  the  honour  of  their  Master,  p.  69,  70.  And 
he  pretends,  that  he  could  tell  many  other  things  relative  to  Jesus,  beside 
those  things  that  were  written  of  him  by  his  own  disciples ;  but  that  he 
willingly  passed  by  them,  p.  67.  We  may  conclude  from  his  expres- 
sions, both  that  he  was  sensible  that  these  accounts  were  written  by 
Christ's  own  disciples,  (and  indeed  he  never  pretends  to  contest  this,) 
and  that  he  was  not  able  to  produce  any  contrary  accounts  to  invali- 
date them,  as  he  certainly  would  have  done,  if  it  had  been  in  his 
power  :  since  no  man  ever  wrote  with  greater  virulence  against  Chris- 
tianity than  he.  And  indeed,  how  was  it  possible  for  ten  or  eleven 
publicans  and  boatmen,  as  he  calls  Christ's  disciples  by  way  of  contempt, 
(p.  47,)  to  have  imposed  such  things  on  the  world,  if  they  had  not  been 
true,  so  as  to  persuade  such  vast  multitudes  to  embrace  a  new  and  de- 
spised religion,  contrary  to  all  their  prejudices  and  interests,  and  to 
believe  in  one  that  had  been  crucified  ! 

"There  are  several  other  things,  which  show  that  Celsus  was  ac- 
quainted with  the  Gospel.  He  produces  several  of  our  Saviour's  say- 
ings, there  recorded,  as  that  it  is  easier  for  a  camel  to  pass  through 
the  eye  of  a  needle,  than  for  a  rich  man  to  enter  into  the  kingdom  of 
God ;  that  to  him  who  smites  us  on  one  cheek,  we  must  turn  the  other ; 


124  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

that  it  is  not  possible  to  serve  two  masters ;  his  precept  against  thought- 
fulness  for  to-morrow,  by  a  comparison  drawn  from  crows  and  lilies ; 
his  foretelling  that  false  prophets  should  arise  and  work  wonders.  He 
mentions  also  some  passages  of  the  Apostle  Paul,  such  as  these  :  The 
world  is  crucified  unto  me  and  I  unto  the  world ; — the  wisdom  of  man  is 
foolishness  with  God ; — an  idol  is  nothing. 

"  The  use  I  would  make  of  all  this  is,  that  it  appears  here  with  an 
uncontested  evidence,  by  the  testimony  of  one  of  the  most  malicious 
and  virulent  adversaries  the  Christian  religion  ever  had,  and  who  was 
also  a  man  of  considerable  parts  and  learning,  that  the  writings  of  the 
evangelists  were  extant  in  his  time,  which  was  the  next  century  to 
that  in  which  the  apostles  lived  ;  and  that  those  accounts  were  writ- 
ten by  Christ's  own  disciples,  and  consequently  that  they  were  writ- 
ten in  the  very  age  in  which  the  facts  related  were  done,  and  when, 
therefore,  it  would  have  been  the  easiest  thing  in  the  world  to  have 
convicted  them  of  falsehood,  if  they  had  not  been  true." 

Porphyry  flourished  about  the  year  270,  a  man  of  great  abilities ;  and 
his  work  against  the  Christians,  in  fifteen  books,  was  long  esteemed  by 
the  Gentiles,  and  thought  worthy  of  being  answered  by  Eusebius,  and 
others  in  great  repute  for  learning.  He  was  well  acquainted  with  the 
books  of  the  Old  and  New  Testaments  ;  and  in  his  writings  are  plain 
references  to  the  Gospels  of  Matthew,  Mark,  John,  the  Acts  of  the 
Apostles,  and  the  Epistle  to  the  Galatians,  and  probable  references  to 
the  other  Epistles  of  St.  Paul.  About  the  year  303,  Hierocles,  a  man 
of  learning  and  a  magistrate,  wrote  against  the  Christians  in  two  books. 
He  was  well  acquainted  with  our  Scriptures,  and  made  many  objections 
to  them,  thereby  bearing  testimony  to  their  antiquity,  and  to  the  great 
respect  which  was  shown  them  by  the  Christians  ;  for  he  has  referred 
both  to  the  Gospels  and  to  the  Epistles.  He  mentions  Peter  and  Paul 
by  name,  and  did  not  deny  the  truth  of  our  Saviour's  miracles  ;  but,  in 
order  to  overthrow  the  argument  which  the  Christians  built  upon  them, 
he  set  up  the  reputed  miracles  of  Apollonius  Tyanaeus  to  rival  them. 
The  Emperor  Julian,  who  succeeded  Constantius  in  the  year  361,  wrote 
also  against  the  Christians,  and  in  his  work  has  undesignedly  borne  a 
valuable  testimony  to  the  history  and  books  of  the  New  Testament.  He 
allows  that  Jesus  was  born  in  the  reign  of  Augustus,  at  the  time  of  a 
taxing  made  in  Judea  by  Cyrenius.  That  the  Christian  religion  had  its 
rise,  and  began  to  be  propagated,  in  the  times  of  the  Roman  emperors 
Tiberius  and  Claudius.  He  bears  witness  to  the  genuineness  and 
authenticity  of  the  four  Gospels  of  Matthew,  Mark,  Luke,  and  John, 
and  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles.  And  he  so  quotes  them  as  to  intimate 
that  these  were  the  only  historical  books  received  by  Christians,  as  of 
authority ;  and  the  only  authentic  memoirs  of  Jesus  Christ,  and  his 
apostles,  and  the  doctrines  preached  by  them.     He  allows  the  early 


FIRST.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  125 

date  of  the  Gospels,  and  even  argues  for  them.  He  quotes,  or  plainly 
refers  to  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  as  already  said ;  to  St.  Paul's 
Epistles  to  the  Romans,  to  the  Corinthians,  and  to  the  Galatians.  He 
does  not  deny  the  miracles  of  Jesus  Christ,  but  allows  him  to  have 
healed  the  blind,  and  the  lame,  and  demoniacs,  and  to  have  rebuked  the 
winds,  and  to  have  walked  upon  the  waves  of  the  sea.  He  endeavours, 
indeed,  to  diminish  those  works,  but  in  vain.  He  endeavours  also  to 
lessen  the  number  of  the  early  believers  in  Jesus,  but  acknowledges, 
that  there  were  multitudes  of  such  men  in  Greece  and  Italy  before  St. 
John  wrote  his  Gospel.  He  likewise  affects  to  diminish  the  quality  of 
the  early  believers  ;  and  yet  acknowledges,  that  beside  men  servants  and 
maid  servants,  Cornelius,  a  Roman  centurion  at  Cesarea,  and  Sergius 
Paulus,  proconsul  of  Cyprus,  were  converted  to  the  faith  of  Jesus  be- 
fore the  end  of  the  reign  of  Claudius.  And  he  often  speaks  with  great 
indignation  of  Peter  and  Paul,  those  two  great  apostles  of  Jesus,  and 
successful  preachers  of  his  Gospel,  so  that,  upon  the  whole,  he  has 
undesignedly  borne  witness  to  the  truth  of  many  things  recorded  in  the 
jooks  of  the  New  Testament.  He  aimed  to  overthrow  the  Christian 
religion,  but  has  confirmed  it.  His  arguments  against  it  are  perfectly 
harmless,  and  insufficient  to  unsettle  the  weakest  Christian. 

The  quotations  from  Porphyry,  Hierocles,  and  Julian,  may  be  consulted 
•  n  Lardner,  who  thus  sums  up  his  observations  on  their  testimony : — 

"  They  bear  a  fuller  and  more  valuable  testimony  to  the  books  of  the 
New  Testament,  and  to  the  facts  of  the  evangelical  history,  and  to  the 
affairs  of  Christians,  than  all  our  other  witnesses  beside.  They  pro- 
posed  to  overthrow  the  arguments  for  Christianity.  They  aimed  to 
bring  back  to  Gentilism  those  who  had  forsaken  it,  and  to  put  a  stop  to 
the  progress  of  Christianity,  by  the  farther  addition  of  new  converts. 
But  in  those  designs  they  had  very  little  success  in  their  own  times ;  and 
their  works,  composed  and  published  in  the  early  days  of  Christianity, 
are  now  a  testimony  in  our  favour,  and  will  be  of  use  in  the  defence 
of  Christianity  to  the  latest  ages. 

"  One  thing  more  which  may  be  taken  notice  of,  is  this :  that  the 
remains  of  our  ancient  adversaries  confirm  the  present  prevailing  senti- 
ments of  Christians,  concerning  those  books  of  the  New  Testament 
which  we  call  canonical,  and  are  in  the  greatest  authority  with  us.  For 
their  writings  show,  that  those  very  books,  and  not  any  others  now 
generally  called  apocryphal,  are  the  books  which  always  were  in  the 
highest  repute  with  Christians,  and  were  then  the  rule  of  their  faith, 
as  they  are  now  of  ours." 

To  the  same  effect  are  the  observations  of  Paley.  These  testimonies 
rt  prove  that  neither  Celsus  in  the  second,  Porphyry  in  the  third,  nor  Julian 
n  the  fourth  century,  suspected  the  authenticity  of  these  books,  or  even 
insinuated  that  Christians  were  mistaken  in  the  authors  to  whom  they 


126  THEOLOGICAL   INSTITUTES.  [PART 

ascribed  them.  Not  one  of  them  expressed  an  opinion  upon  this  subject 
different  from  that  which  is  holden  by  Christians.  And  when  we  con- 
sider how  much  it  would  have  availed  them  to  cast  a  doubt  upon  this 
point  if  they  could,  and  how  ready  they  showed  themselves  to  take 
every  advantage  in  their  power,  and  that  they  were  men  of  learning 
and  inquiry,  their  concession,  or  rather  their  suffrage  upon  the  sub- 
ject,  is  extremely  valuable." 

That  the  facts  and  statements  recorded  in  the  evangelic  history 
were  not  forgeries  of  a  subsequent  period,  is  made  also  still  more 
indubitable  from  the  fact,  that  the  four  Gospels  and  the  Acts  of  the 
Apostles  are  quoted  or  alluded  to  by  a  series  of  Christians,  beginning 
with  those  who  were  contemporary  with  the  apostles,  or  who  immediately 
followed,  and  proceeding  in  close  and  regular  succession  from  their  time 
to  the  present.  "  The  medium  of  proof  stated  in  this  proposition," 
observes  Dr.  Paley, "  is  of  all  others  the  most  unquestionable,  and  is  not 
diminished  by  the  lapse  of  ages.  Bishop  Burnet,  in  the  History  of  his 
Own  Times,  inserts  various  extracts  from  Lord  Clarendon's  History. 
One  such  assertion  is  a  proof  that  Lord  Clarendon's  History  was  extant 
when  Bishop  Burnet  wrote,  that  it  had  been  read  and  received  by  him 
as  a  work  of  Lord  Clarendon's,  and  regarded  by  him  as  an  authentic 
account  of  the  transactions  which  it  relates  ;  and  it  will  be  a  proof  of 
these  points  a  thousand  years  hence.  The  application  of  this  argument 
to  the  Gospel  history  is  obvious.  If  the  different  books  which  are 
received  by  Christians  as  containing  this  history  are  quoted  by  a  series 
of  writers,  as  genuine  in  respect  of  their  authors,  and  as  authentic  in 
respect  to  their  narrative,  up  to  the  age  in  which  the  writers  of  them 
.ived,  then  it  is  clear  that  these  books  must  have  had  an  existence  pre- 
vious to  the  earliest  of  those  writings  in  which  they  are  quoted,  and  that 
they  were  then  admitted  as  authentic."  "  Their  genuineness  is  made 
out,  as  well  by  the  general  arguments  which  evince  the  genuineness  of 
the  most  indisputed  remains  of  antiquity,  as  also  by  peculiar  and  specific 
proofs,  by  citations  from  them  in  writings  belonging  to  a  period  imme- 
diately contiguous  to  that  in  which  they  were  published ;  by  the  dis- 
tinguished regard  paid  by  early  Christians  to  the  authority  of  these 
books  ;  (which  regard  was  manifested  by  their  collecting  of  them  into  a 
volume,  appropriating  to  that  volume  titles  of  peculiar  respect,  trans- 
lating them  into  various  languages,  disposing  them  into  harmonies, 
writing  commentaries  upon  them,  and  still  more  conspicuously  by  the 
reading  of  them  in  their  public  assemblies  in  all  parts  of  the  world ;) 
by  a  universal  agreement  with  respect  to  these  books,  while  doubts  were 
entertained  concerning  some  others  ;  by  contending  sects  appealing  to 
them  ;  by  many  formal  catalogues  of  these,  as  of  certain  and  authori- 
tative writings  published  in  different  and  distant  parts  of  the  world ; 
lastly,  by  the  absence  or  defect  of  the  above-cited  topics  of  evidence, 


FIRST.]  TIIEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  127 

when  applied  to  any  other  histories  of  the  same  subject."   (PaZej/'* 
Evidences,  cap.  x.) 

All  the  parts  of  this  argument  may  be  seen  clearly  made  out  by 
passages  quoted  from  the  writers  of  the  primitive  ages  of  the  Christian 
Church,  in  Dr.  Lardner's  "  Credibility,"  Dr.  Paley's  "  Evidences,"  and 
many  other  writers  in  defence  of  Christianity.  It  is  exhibited  in  great 
force  also  in  the  first  volume  of  Home's  "  Introduction  to  the  Study  of 
the  Scriptures." 


Note  A. — Page  110. 

"  The  documents  which  claim  to  have  been  thus  handed  down  to  posterity  are 
the  five  books  attributed  to  Moses  himself,  and  usually  denominated  the  Penta. 
teuch.  Now,  the  question  before  us  is,  whether  they  were,  indeed,  written 
synchronically  with  the  Exodus,  or  whether  they  were  composed  in  the  name  of 
Moses,  at  a  much  later  period. 

"  That  the  Jews  have  acknowledged  the  authenticity  of  the  Pentateuch,  from 
the  present  day  to  the  era  of  our  Lord's  nativity,  a  period  of  more  than  eighteen 
centuries,  admits  not  of  a  possibility  of  a  doubt.  But  this  era  is  long  posterior 
to  that  of  Moses  himself:  it  will  be  necessary,  therefore,  in  order  to  establish 
the  point  under  discussion,  to  travel  backward,  step  by  step,  so  far  as  we  can 
safoly  penetrate,  according  to  the  established  rules  of  moral  evidence. 

"  About  two  hundred  and  seventy-seven  years  before  the  Christian  era,  in  the 
reign  of  Ptolemy  Philadelphus,  king  of  Egypt,  the  Pentateuch,  with  the  other 
books  of  the  Old  Testament,  was  translated  into  Greek,  for  the  use  of  the  Alex- 
andrian Jews ;  and  from  the  almost  universal  prevalence  of  that  language,  it 
henceforth  became  very  widely  disseminated,  and  was  thus  rendered  accessible 
to  the  learned  and  inquisitive  of  every  country. 

"  Now,  that  Greek  translation  which  is  still  extant,  and  which  is  in  the  hands 
of  almost  every  person,  demonstrates  that  the  Hebrew  Pentateuch  must  have 
existed  two  hundred  and  seventy-seven  years  before  Christ,  because  there  is  that 
correspondency  between  the  two,  which  amply  proves  that  the  former  must  have 
been  a  version  of  the  latter.  But,  if  it  certainly  existed  two  hundred  and  seventy- 
seven  years  before  Christ,  it  must  have  existed  in  the  days  of  Ezra,  at  the  time 
of  the  return  from  Babylon,  in  the  year  before  Christ  five  hundred  and  thirty -six ; 
because  there  is  no  point  between  those  two  epochs,  to  which,  with  a  shadow  of 
probability,  we  can  ascribe  its  composition.  It  existed,  therefore,  in  the  year 
five  hundred  and  thirty-six,  before  the  Christian  era. 

"  Thus  we  have  gained  one  retrogressive  step  :  let  us  next  see  whether,  with 
equal  certainty,  we  can  gain  another. 

•«  As  it  cannot  be  rationally  denied,  that  the  Pentateuch  has  been  in  existence 
aver  since  the  return  of  the  Jews  from  Babylon,  in  the  year  five  hundred  and  thirty, 
six,  before  the  Christian  era,  some  have  thence  been  pleased  to  contend,  that  it 
was  the  work  of  Ezra ;  being  a  digested  compilation  of  the  indistinct  and  fabulous 
traditions  of  that  people,  which,  like  most  nations  of  antiquity,  they  possessed  in 
great  abundance. 

"  To  such  an  opinion,  when  thoroughly  sifted,  there  are  insuperable  objections, 
however  specious  it  may  appear  to  a  hasty  observer. 

"  In  the  book  of  Ezra,  the  law  of  Moses,  the  man  of  God,  is  specifically  re- 
ferred to,  as  a  well  known  written  document  then  actually  existing;  and,  in  the 


128  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

succeeding  book  of  Nehemiah,  we  have  an  ample  account  of  the  mode  in  which 
that  identical  written  document  was  openly  read  to  the  people,  under  the  precise 
name  of  the  Book  of  the  law  of  Moses,  which  the  Lord  had  commanded  to  Israel. 
Nor  is  this  all :  it  was  not  that  Ezra  produced  a  new  volume,  and  called  upon 
the  Jews  to  receive  it  as  the  authentic  law  of  Moses;  but  the  people  themselves 
called  upon  Ezra  to  bring  forth  and  read  that  book,  as  a  work  with  which  they 
had  long  been  familiarly  acquainted.  The  law  of  Moses,  therefore,  must  have  been 
well  known  to  exist  in  writing  previous  to  the  return  from  Babylon  ;  and  as  Ezra 
could  not  have  produced  under  that  name  a  mere  compilation  of  oral  traditions, 
so  neither  could  he  have  suppressed  the  ancient  volume  of  the  law,  nor  have  set 
forth  instead  of  it,  that  volume  which  the  Jews  have  ever  since  received  as  the 
authentic  Pentateuch.  His  own  book  affords  proof  positive,  that  some  written 
law  of  Moses  was  known  previously  to  have  existed  :  and  tho  call  of  the  people, 
that  it  should  be  read  to  them,  demonstrates  that  it  could  not  long  have  perished  ; 
for  if  the  work  had  been  confessedly  lost  for  many  years,  the  people  could  not 
have  called  for  that,  which  neither  they  nor  their  fathers  had  ever  beheld.  If, 
then,  it  were  suppressed  by  Ezra,  in  favour  of  his  own  spurious  composition,  he 
must  botli  have  contrived  to  make  himself  master  of  every  extant  copy  of  the 
genuine  work,  and  he  must  have  persuaded  a  whole  people  to  receive  as  genuine, 
what  almost  every  man  among  them  must  immediately  have  perceived  to  be 
spurious.  For,  if  the  genuine  work  were  in  existence  down  to  the  very  time  of 
Ezra,  a  point  clearly  involved  in  the  demand  of  the  people  to  have  it  read  to 
them ;  and  if  the  people  had  long  been  accustomed  to  hear  it  read  to  them, 
a  point  equally  implied  in  their  recorded  demand  upon  Ezra,  they  must  all  have 
been  adequately  acquainted  with  its  contents ;  and  tho  higher  ranks  among  them 
must  have  repeatedly  perused,  and  must  therefore  have  known  the  whole  of  it, 
just  as  intimately  as  Ezra  could  do  himself.  But,  what  was  thus  universally 
familiar  could  be  no  more  set  aside  by  the  fiat  of  an  individual  in  favour  of  his 
own  spurious  composition,  than  the  Pentateuch  could  now  be  set  asido  through. 
out  Christendom,  in  favour  of  some  newly  produced  volume  which  claimed  to  be 
tho  genuine  law  of  Moses.  Add  to  this,  that  when  the  foundations  of  tho 
second  temple  were  laid,  many  persons  were  alive  who  well  remembered  the 
first.  These  consequently  must  have  known  whether  there  was  or  was  not  a 
written  law  of  Moses  anterior  to  the  captivity ;  nor  could  they  be  deceived  by  the 
production  of  any  novel  composition  by  Ezra. 

"  Such  is  the  evidence  afforded  by  the  very  books  of  Ezra  and  Nehemiah,  to 
the  existence  of  a  written  law  of  Moses  prior  to  the  return  from  Babylon,  of  a 
law  familiarly  known  to  the  whole  body  of  the  people.  But  there  is  yet  another 
evidence  to  the  same  purpose,  analogous  to  that  furnished  by  the  Greek  transla- 
tion of  the  seventy. 

"  We  have  now  extant  two  Hebrew  copies  of  the  law  of  Moses :  the  one 
received  by  the  Jews,  the  other  acknowledged  by  the  Samaritans :  each  main- 
taining that  their  own  is  the  genuine  record.  Now,  if  we  examine  these 
two  copies,  we  shall  find  their  coincidence  throughout  to  be  such,  that  we 
cannot  doubt  a  moment  as  to  their  original  identity  in  every  word,  and  in  every 
sentence. 

"  We  read,  that  after  the  king  of  Assyria  had  deported  the  ten  tribes,  and  had 
colonized  their  territories  with  a  mixed  multitude  from  various  parts  of  his  domi- 
nions, the  new  settlers  were  infested  by  the  incursions  of  wild  beasts.  This 
calamity,  agreeably  to  the  prevalent  notion  of  local  tutelary  gods,  they  attributed 
to  their  not  worshipping  the  god  of  the  land  after  his  own  prescribed  manner. — 
To  remedy  the  defect,  therefore,  one  of  the  deported  Levitical  priests  was  sent  to 


FIRST.]  THEOLOGICAL   INSTITUTES.  129 

them,  that  he  might  teach  them,  as  the  Assyrian  monarch  expressed  himself,  iA* 
manner  of  the  god  of  the  land.  The  priest  accordingly  came  among  them,  and 
dwelt  in  Bethel,  and  taught  them  how  they  should  fear  Jehovah ;  but  while  they 
duly  received  his  instructions,  they  mixed  the  service  of  the  true  God  with  the 
service  of  their  native  idols.  Hence,  so  far  as  that  particular  was  concerned,  we- 
are  informed,  that  they  neither  did  after  their  statutes,  nor  after  their  ordinances, 
nor  after  the  law  and  commandment  which  Jehovah  commanded  the  children  of 
Jacob. 

"  Now,  it  is  obvious,  that  the  whole  of  this  account  supposes  them  to  have  a 
copy  of  the  Pentateuch  ;  for,  if  the  priest  were  to  instruct  them  in  the  law  of  the 
Lord,  he  would,  of  course,  communicate  to  them  a  copy  of  that  law  ;  and 
though  their  ancient  superstitions  led  them  to  disregard  its  prohibitions,  still  it 
could  not  have  been  properly  said  of  them,  that  they  neither  did  after  their  sta- 
tutes, nor  after  their  ordinances,  nor  after  the  law  and  commandment  which  Jeho- 
vah commanded  the  children  of  Jacob,  if  all  the  while  they  were  wholly  unac . 
quainted  with  those  statutes  and  those  ordinances,  and  with  that  law,  and  with 
that  commandment.  It  is  manifest,  therefore,  that  they  must  at  that  time  have 
received  the  copy  of  the  Pentateuch,  which  they  always  afterward  religiously 
preserved.  But  this  copy  is  the  very  same  as  that  which  the  Jews  and  ourselves 
still  receive.  Consequently,  as  the  Samaritans  received  it  some  years  prior  even 
to  the  Babylonic  captivity  of  Judah,  and  as  it  is  the  very  same  code  as  that  which 
some  would  fain  attribute  to  Ezra,  we  may  be  sure,  that  that  learned  scribe  could 
not  possibly  have  been  its  author,  but  that  he  has  handed  down  to  us  the  genuine 
law  of  Moses,  with  the  utmost  good  faith  and  integrity. 

"  Here  we  cannot  but  observe  the  providence  of  God  in  raising  up  so  unobjec- 
tionable a  testimony  as  that  of  the  Samaritans.  They  and  the  Jews  cordially 
hated  each  other,  and  they  both  possessed  a  copy  of  the  Pentateuch.  Hence,  had 
there  been  any  disposition  to  tamper  with  the  text,  they  acted  as  a  mutual  check ; 
and  the  result  has  been,  that  perhaps  not  a  wilful  alteration  can  be  shown,  except 
the  text  relative  to  Gerizim  and  Ebal. 

"  The  universal  admission  of  the  Pentateuch,  as  the  inspired  law  of  Mosee, 
throughout  the  whole  commonwealth  of  Israel,  prior  to  its  disruption  into  two 
hostile  kingdoms,  the  magnificent  temple  of  Solomon,  and  the  whole  ritua* 
attached  to  it,  plainly  depends  altogether  upon  the  previously  existing  Penta- 
teuch ;  and  that  code  so  strictly  prohibits  more  than  one  practice  of  Solomon, 
that  even  to  say  nothing  of  the  general  objection  from  novelty,  it  is  incredible 
either  that  he  should  have  been  its  author,  or  that  it  should  have  been  written 
under  his  sanction  and  authority. 

"  As  little  can  we,  with  any  degree  of  probability,  ascribe  it  to  David.  His 
life  was  occupied  with  almost  incessant  troubles  and  warfare  ;  and  it  is  difficult 
to  conceive,  how  a  book  written  by  that  prince  could,  in  the  space  of  a  very  few 
years,  be  universally  received  as  the  inspired  composition  of  Moses,  when  no 
person  had  ever  previously  heard  that  Moses  left  any  Jegislative  code  behind 
him. 

"  The  Pentateuch  might  be  more  plausibly  given  to  Samuel  than  to  cither  of 
those  two  princes  ;  but  this  supposition  will  not  stand  for  a  moment  the  test  of 
rational  inquiry.  We  shall  still  have  the  same  difficulty  to  contend  with  ad 
before :  we  shall  still  have  to  point  out  how  it  was  possible  that  Samuel  should 
persuade  all  Israel  to  adopt,  as  the  inspired  and  authoritative  law  of  Moses,  » 
mere  modern  composition  of  his  own,  which  no  person  had  ever  previously 
heard  of. 

"  We  have  now  ascended  to  within  less  than  four  centuries  after  the  exodua 
Vol.  I.  9 


130  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

from  Egypt,  and  the  alleged  promulgation  of  the  law  from  Mount  Sinai ;  and 
from  Ezra  to  Samuel,  we  have  found  no  person  to  whom  the  composition  of  the 
Pentateueh  can,  with  any  show  of  reason  or  probability,  be  assigned.  The 
only  remaini7.^  question  is,  whether  it  can  be  thought  to  have  been  written 
during  the  three  Lundred  and  fifty-six  years  which  elapsed  between  the  en- 
trance of  the  Israelites  into  Palestine,  and  the  appointment  of  Saul  to  be  king 
of  Israel. 

"  Now,  the  whole  history  which  we  have  of  that  period  utterly  forbids  such  a 
supposition.  The  Israelites,  though  perpetually  lapsing  into  idolatry,  are  uni- 
formly described  as  acknowledging  the  authority  of  a  written  law  of  Moses  ;  and 
this  law,  from  generation  to  generation,  is  stated  to  be  the  directory  by  which 
the  judges  governed  the  people.  Thus,  Samuel  expressly  refers  to  a  well  known 
commandment  of  Jehovah,  and  to  the  Divine  legation  of  Moses  and  Aaron,  in  a 
speech  which  he  made  to  the  assembled  Israelites.  Thus,  the  man  of  God,  in 
his  prophetic  threat  to  Eli,  similarly  refers  to  the  familiar  circumstance  recorded 
in  the  Pentateuch,  that  the  house  of  his  ancestor  had  been  chosen  to  the  pontifi- 
cate out  of  all  the  tribes  of  Israel.  Thus,  when  the  nations  are  enumerated 
which  were  left  to  prove  the  people,  it  is  said  that  they  were  left  for  this  pur- 
pose, that  it  might  be  known  whether  the  Israelites  would  hearken  unto  the 
commandments  of  Jehovah,  which  he  commanded  their  fathers  by  the  hand  of 
Moses.  Thus,  Joshua  is  declared  to  have  written  the  book  which  bears  his' 
name,  as  a  supplement  to  a  prior  book,  which  is  denominated  the  book  of  the  law 
of  God.  Thus,  likewise,  he  specially  asserts,  that  this  book  of  the  law  of  God  is 
the  book  of  the  law  of  Moses ;  speaking  familiarly  of  precepts,  which  are  written 
in  that  book  ;  represents  himself  as  reading  its  contents  to  all  the  assembled 
people,  so  that  none  of  them  could  be  ignorant  of  its  purport ;  and  mentions  his 
writing  a  copy  of  it  in  the  presence  of  the  children  of  Israel.  And  thus,  finally, 
we  hear  of  the  original,  whence  that  copy  is  professed  to  have  been  taken,  in  the 
volume  of  the  Pentateuch  itself;  for  we  are  there  told,  that  Moses  with  his  own 
hand  wrote  the  words  of  this  law  in  a  book  ;  and  that  he  then  commanded  the 
Levites  to  take  this  book  of  the  law  and  put  it  in  the  side  of  the  ark  of  the  cove- 
nant,  that  it  might  be  there  for  a  witness  in  all  succeeding  ages  against  the 
Israelites,  in  case  they  should  violate  its  precepts."  (Abridged  from  Faber's 
Hot  a,  Mosaicce.) 


Note  B.— Page  119. 

"  In  events  so  public  and  so  signal,  there  was  no  room  for  mistake  or  decep. 
tion.  Of  all  the  miracles  recorded  in  the  Scriptures  of  the  Old  and  New  Testa, 
ments,  there  is  not  one  of  which  the  evidence  is  so  multiplied  as  that  of  the  descent 
of  the  Holy  Ghost  on  the  day  of  pentecost ;  for  it  rests  not  on  the  testimony  of 
those,  whether  many  or,  few,  who  were  all  with  one  accord  in  one  place.  It  is 
testified  by  all  Jerusalem,  and  by  the  natives  of  regions  far  distant  from  Jerusalem  ; 
for  there  were  then,  says  the  historian,  'dwelling  at  Jerusalem  Jews,  devout  men, 
out  of  every  nation  under  heaven  ;  and  when  the  inspiration  of  the  disciples  was 
noised  abroad,  the  multitude  came  together,  and  were  all  confounded,  because 
that  every  man  heard  them  speak  in  his  own  language.  And  they  were  all 
amazed  and  marvelled,  saying  one  to  another,  Behold,  are  not  all  these  who 
speak  Galileans  ?  and  how  hear  we  every  man  in  our  own  tongue,  wherein  we 
were  born?  Parthians,  and  Medes,  and  Elamites,  and  the  dwellers  in  Mesopo- 
tamia, and  in  Judea,  and  Cappadocia,  and  Pamphylia,  in  Egypt,  and  the  parts 


PIKST.]  THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES.  131 

of  Lybia  about  Cyrene,  and  strangers  of  Rome,  Jews  and  proselytes,  Cretes 
and  Arabians,  we  do  hear  them  speak  in  our  tongues  the  wonderful  works 
of  God.' 

"  It  hath  been  objected  by  infidelity  to  the  resurrection  of  Christ,  that  he 
ought  to  have  appeared  publicly,  wherever  he  had  appeared  before  his  cruci- 
fixion :  but  here  is  a  miracle  displayed  much  farther  than  the  resurrection  of 
Christ  could  have  been  by  his  preaching  openly,  and  working  miracles  for  forty 
days  in  the  temple  and  synagogues  of  Jerusalem,  as  he  had  done  formerly;  and 
this  iiiiriicle  is  so  connected  with  the  resurrection,  that  if  the  apostles  speaking 
a  variety  of  tongues  be  admitted,  the  resurrection  of  Jesus  cannot  be  denied. — 
In  reply  to  those  (probably  the  natives  of  Jerusalem,)  who,  imagining  that  the 
apostles  uttered  gibberish,  charged  them  with  being  full  of  new  wine,  St.  Peter 
said,  '  Ye  men  of  Judea,  and  all  ye  that  dwell  at  Jerusalem,  be  this  known  unto 
you,  and  hearken  to  my  words ;  for  these  men  are  not  drunken  as  ye  suppose, 
seeing  it  is  but  the  third  hour  of  the  day.  Jesus  of  Nazareth,  a  man  approved 
of  God  among  you  by  miracles,  and  signs,  and  wonders,  which  God  did  by  him 
in  the  midst  of  you,  as  ye  yourselves  also  know  :  him  being  delivered  by  the 
determinate  counsel  and  foreknowledge  of  God,  ye  have  taken,  and  by  wicked 
hands  have  crucified  and  slain.  This  Jesus  hath  God  raised  up,  whereof  we  are 
all  witnesses.  Therefore,  being  by  the  right  hand  of  God  exalted,  and  having 
received  of  the  Father  the  promise  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  he  hath  shed  forth  this 
which  ye  now  see  and  hear.' 

"  Thus,  by  the  miraculous  effusion  of  the  Holy  Spirit  on  the  day  of  pentecost, 
were  the  resurrection  and  ascension  of  Christ  proved  to  a  variety  of  nations  of 
Asia,  Africa,  and  Europe,  all  the  quarters  of  the  globe  which  were  then  known, 
as  completely  as  if  he  had  actually  appeared  among  that  mixed  multitude  in  Je- 
rusalem, reproved  the  high  priest  and  council  of  the  Jews  for  their  unbelief  and 
nardncss  of  heart,  and  then  ascended  in  their  presence  to  heaven.  They  had  such 
evidence  as  was  incontrovertible,  that  St.  Peter  and  the  other  apostles  were  in- 
iwired  by  the  Spirit  of  God  ;  they  could  not  but  know,  as  every  Theist  admits, 
..nat  the  Spirit  of  God  never  was,  nor  ever  will  be,  shed  abroad  to  enable  any 
order  of  men  to  propagate  falsehood  with  success;  one  of  those  who,  by  this  in- 
fcpiration,  were  speaking  correctly  a  variety  of  tongues,  assured  them,  that  Jesus 
of  Nazareth,  whom  they  had  slain,  was  raised  from  the  dead,  and  exalted  to  the 
right  hand  of  God ;  and  that  the  same  Jesus  had,  according  to  his  promise,  shed 
abroad  on  the  apostles  that  which  they  both  saw  and  heard.  The  consequence 
of  all  this,  we  are  told,  was,  that  three  thousand  of  his  audience  were  instantly 
converted  to  the  faith,  and  the  same  day  incorporated  into  the  Church  by  baptism. 

"Would  any  in  his  senses  have  written  a  narrative  of  such  events  as  these  at 
the  very  time  when  they  are  said  to  have  happened,  and  in  any  one  of  those 
countries,  to  the  inhabitants  of  which  he  appeals  as  witnesses  of  their  truth,  if 
he  had  not  been  aware  that  their  truth  could  not  be  called  in  question  ?  Would 
any  forger  of  such  a  book  as  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  at  a  period  near  to  that  in 
which  he  relates  that  such  astonishing  events  had  happened,  have  needlessly 
appealed,  for  the  truth  of  his  narrative,  to  the  people  of  all  nations,  and  thus  gone 
out  of  his  way  to  furnish  his  readers  with  innumerable  means  of  detecting  his 
imposture  ?  At  no  period,  indeed,  could  forged  books,  such  as  the  four  Gospels 
and  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  have  been  received  as  authentic,  unless  all  the  events 
which  they  record,  whether  natural  or  supernatural,  had  been  believed,  all  the 
principal  doctrines  received,  and  all  the  rites  of  religion  which  they  prescribe 
practised,  from  the  very  period  at  which  they  represent  the  Son  of  God  as  so. 
journing  on  earth,  laying  the  foundation  of  his  Church,  dying  on  a  cross,  rising 


132  THEOLOGICAL   INSTITUTES.  iPART 

from  the  dead,  and  ascending  into  heaven.  The  argument  cannot,  perhaps,  be 
employed  to  prove  the  authenticity  of  all  the  epistles  which  make  so  great  a  part 
of  the  New  Testament ;  but  it  is  certainly  as  applicable  to  some  of  them  as  it  is 
to  the  Gospels,  and  the  book  called  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles. 

"  The  apostles,  as  Michaelis  justly  observes,  (Introduction  to  the  New  Testa, 
ment,  chap,  ii,  sect.  1,)  '  frequently  allude,  in  their  epistles,  to  the  gift  of  miracles, 
which  they  had  communicated  to  the  Christian  converts  by  the  imposition  of 
hands,  in  confirmation  of  the  doctrine  delivered  in  their  speeches  and  writings, 
and  sometimes  to  miracles,  which  they  themselves  had  performed.'  Now  if  these 
epistles  are  really  genuine,  the  miracles  referred  to  must  certainly  have  been 
wrought,  and  the  doctrines  preached  must  have  been  Divine  ;  for  no  man  in  his 
senses  would  have  written  to  large  communities,  that  he  had  not  only  performed 
miracles  in  their  presence,  in  confirmation  of  the  Divine  origin  of  certain  doc 
trines,  but  that  he  had  likewise  communicated  to  them  the  same  extraordinary 
endowments.  Or  if  we  can  suppose  any  human  being  to  have  possessed  sufficient 
effrontery  to  write  in  this  manner  to  any  community,  it  is  obvious  that,  so  far 
from  gaining  credit  to  his  doctrine  by  such  assertions,  if  not  known  to  be  true, 
he  would  have  exposed  himself  to  the  utmost  ridicule  and  contempt,  and  have 
ruined  the  cause  which  he  attempted  to  support  by  such  absurd  conduct. 

"  St.  Paul's  first  Epistle  to  the  Thessalonians  is  addressed  to  a  Christian  Church, 
which  he  had  lately  founded,  and  to  which  he  had  preached  the  Gospel  only 
three  Sabbath  days.  A  sudden  persecution  obliged  him  to  quit  this  community 
before  he  had  given  to  it  its  proper  degree  of  consistence ;  and,  what  is  of  conse- 
quence in  the  present  instance,  he  was  protected  neither  by  the  power  of  tho 
magistrate  nor  the  favour  of  the  vulgar.  A  pretended  wonder-worker,  who  hag 
once  drawn  the  populace  to  his  party,  may  easily  perform  his  exploits,  and  safely 
proclaim  them.  But  this  very  populace,  at  the  instigation  of  the  Jews,  had  ex 
cited  the  insurrection,  which  obliged  St.  Paul  to  quit  the  town.  He  sends  there 
fore  to  the  Thessalonians,  who  had  received  the  Gospel,  but  whose  faith,  hf 
apprehended,  might  waver  through  persecution,  authorities,  and  proofs  of  hi? 
Divine  mission,  of  which  authorities  the  first  and  the  chief  are  miracles  and  tht* 
gifts  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  1  Thess.  i,  5-10.*  Is  it  possible,  now,  that  St.  Paul, 
without  forfeiting  all  pretensions  to  common  sense,  could,  when  writing  to  a 
Church  which  he  had  lately  established,  have  spoken  of  miracles  performed,  and 
gifts  of  the  Holy  Ghost  communicated,  if  no  member  of  that  Church  had  seen  tho 
one,  or  received  the  other  ;  nay,  if  many  members  had  not  witnessed  both  the 
performance  and  the  effusions  of  the  Holy  Ghost  ?  But  it  is  equally  impossible 
that  tho  epistle,  making  this  appeal  to  miracles  and  spiritual  gifts,  could  have 
been  received  as  authentic,  if  forged  in  the  name  of  St.  Paul,  at  any  future  period, 
during  the  existence  of  a  Christian  Church  at  Thessalonica.  In  the  two  first 
chapters  it  represents  its  author  and  two  of  his  companions  as  having  been  lately 
in  that  city,  and  appeals  to  the  Church  for  the  manner  in  which  they  had  con- 
ducted themselves  while  there,  and  for  the  zeal  and  success  with  which  they  had 
preached  the  Gospel,  and  it  concludes  with  these  awful  words  :  '  I  adjure  you 
(opietfa  vftas)  by  the  Lord,  that  this  epistle  be  read  unto  all  the  holy  brethren ;'  i.  e 
all  the  Christians  of  the  community.  Had  St.  Paul,  and  Timotheus,  and  Sylva 
nus,  never  been  in  Thessalonica,  or  had  they  conducted  themselves  in  any  respect 
differently  from  what  they  are  said  to  have  done  in  the  two  first  chapters,  these 
chapters  would  have  convicted  the  author  of  this  epistle  of  forgery,  at  whatever 
time  it  had    made    its   first   appearance.      Had   they   been    actually  there,  and 

*  See  Hardy's  Greek  Testament ;  Whitby  on  the  Place,  with  Schleusner  and 
Parkhurst's  Lexicons  on  the  word  Amjk*. 


FIRST.]  THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES.  133 

preached,  and  wrought  miracles  just  as  they  are  said  to  have  done ;  and  had  some 
impostor,  knowing  this,  forged  the  epistle  before  us  at  a  considerable  distance  of 
time,  the  adjuration  at  the  end  of  it  must  instantly  have  detected  the  forgery 
Every  Thessalonian  Christian  of  common  sense  would  have  said,  '  How  came  wa 
never  to  hear  of  this  epistle  before  ?  Its  author  represents  himself  and  two  of  his 
friends  as  having  converted  us  to  the  faith  a  very  short  time  before  it  was  written 
and  sent  to  us,  and  he  charges  those  to  whom  it  was  immediately  sent  in  the 
most  solemn  manner  possible,  that  they  should  cause  it  to  be  read  to  every  one 
of  us ;  no  Christian  in  Thessalonica  would,  in  a  matter  of  this  kind,  have  dared 
to  disobey  the  authority  of  an  apostle,  especially  when  enforced  by  so  awful  an 
adjuration  ;  and  yet  neither  we  nor  our  fathers  ever  heard  of  this  epistle,  till  now 
that  Paul,  and  Sylvanus,  and  Timotheus  are  all  dead,  and  therefore  incapable  of 
either  confirming  or  refuting  its  authenticity !'  Such  an  epistle,  if  not  genuine, 
could  never  have  been  received  by  any  community. 

"  The  same  apostle,  in  his  first  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians,  correcfc^he  abuse 
of  certain  spiritual  gifts,  particularly  that  of  speaking  divers  kinds  of  tongues, 
and  prescribes  rules  for  the  employment  of  these  supernatural  talents ;  he  enters 
into  a  particular  detail  of  them,  as  they  existed  in  the  Corinthian  Church  ;  reasons 
on  their  respective  worth  and  excellence ;  says  that  they  were  limited  in  their 
duration,  thiit  they  were  no  distinguishing  mark  of  Divine  favour,  nor  of  so  great 
importance  as  faith  and  virtue,  the  love  of  God,  and  charity  to  our  neighbours. 
Now,  if  this  epistlo  was  really  written  by  St.  Paul  to  the  Corinthians,  and  they 
had  actually  received  no  spiritual  gifts,  no  power,  imparted  by  extraordinary 
means,  of  speaking  foreign  languages,  the  proper  place  to  be  assigned  him  were 
not  among  impostors,  but  among  those  who  had  lost  their  understanding.  A 
juggler  may  deceive  by  the  dexterity  of  his  hands,  and  persuade  the  ignorant  and 
the  credulous  that  more  than  human  moans  are  requisite  for  the  performance  of 
his  extraordinary  feats  ;  but  he  will  hardly  persuade  those  whose  understandings 
remain  unimpaired,  that  he  has  likewise  communicated  to  his  spectators  the  power 
of  working  miracles,  and  of  speaking  languages  which  they  had  never  learned, 
were  they  conscious  of  their  inability  to  perform  the  one,  or  to  speak  the  other. 
If  the  epistle,  therefore,  was  written  during  the  life  of  St.  Paul,  and  received  by 
the  Corinthian  Church,  it  is  impossible  to  doubt  but  that  St.  Paul  was  its  author, 
and  that  among  the  Corinthians  were  prevalent  those  spiritual  gifts  of  which  he 
labours  to  correct  the  abuse.  If  those  gifts  were  never  prevalent  among  the 
Corinthian  Christians,  and  this  epistle  was  not  seen  by  them  until  the  next  age, 
it  could  not  have  been  received  by  the  Corinthian  Church  as  the  genuine  writing 
of  the  apostle,  because  the  members  of  that  Church  must  have  been  aware  that 
if  those  gifts,  of  which  it  speaks,  had  been  really  possessed,  and  so  generally  dis- 
played by  their  fathers,  as  it  represents  them  to  have  been,  some  of  themselves 
would  surely  have  heard  their  fathers  mention  them  ;  and  as  the  epistle  treats  of 
some  of  the  most  important  subjects  that  ever  occupied  the  mind  of  man,  the 
introduction  of  death  into  the  world  through  Adam,  and  the  resurrection  of  the 
dead  through  Christ,  they  must  have  inferred  that  their  fathers  would  not  have 
secreted  from  them  their  children  a  treatise  on  topics  so  interesting  to  the  whole 
human  race."  (Gleig's  Edition  of  Stackkouse'a  History  of  the  Bible,  vol.  iii. 
Intro,  p.  11,  &c.) 


134  THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES.  [PART 

CHAPTER  XIII. 

The  uncorrupted  Preservation  of  the  Books  of  Scripture. 

The  historical  evidence  of  the  antiquity  and  genuineness  of  the  books 
ascribed  to  Moses,  and  those  which  contain  the  history  of  Christ  and  the 
establishment  of  his  religion,  being  thus  complete,  the  integrity  of  the 
copies  at  present  received  is  the  point  next  in  question. 

With  respect  to  the  Scriptures  of  the  Old  Testament;  the  list  of  Jo- 
sephus,  the  Septuagint  translation,  and  the  Samaritan  Pentateuch,  are 
sufficient  proofs  that  the  books  which  are  received  by  us  as  sacred,  are 
the  same  as  those  received  by  the  Jews  and  Samaritans  long  before  the 
Christiarr%ra.  For  the  New  Testament ;  beside  the  quotations  from 
almost  all  the  books  now  included  in  that  volume  and  references  to  them 
by  name  in  the  earliest  Christian  writers,  catalogues  of  authentic  Scrip- 
tures were  published  at  very  early  periods,  which,  says  Dr.  Paley, 
"  though  numerous,  and  made  in  countries  at  a  wide  distance  from  one 
another,  differ  very  little,  differ  in  nothing  material,  and  all  contain  the 
four  Gospels. 

"  In  the  writings  of  Origen  which  remain,  and  in  some  extracts  pre- 
served by  Eusebius,  from  works  of  his  which  are  now  lost,  there  are 
enumerations  of  the  books  of  Scripture,  in  which  the  four  Gospels  and 
the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  are  distinctly  and  honourably  specified,  and  in 
which  no  books  appear  beside  what  are  now  received.  {Lard.  Cred.  vol. 
iii,  p.  234,  et  seq.,vol.  viii,  p.  196.)  The  date  of  Origen's  works  is 
A.  D.  230. 

"  Athanasius,  about  a  century  afterward,  delivered  a  catalogue  of  the 
books  of  the  New  Testament  in  form,  containing  our  Scriptures  and  no 
others ;  of  which  he  says,  '  In  these  alone  the  doctrine  of  religion  is 
taught ;  let  no  man  add  to  them,  or  take  any  thing  from  them.'  (Lard. 
Cred.  vol.  viii,  p.  223.) 

"  About  twenty  years  after  Athanasius,  Cyril,  bishop  of  Jerusalem, 
set  forth  a  catalogue  of  the  books  of  Scripture  publicly  read  at  that  time 
in  the  Church  of  Jerusalem,  exactly  the  same  as  ours,  except  that  the 
'Revelation'  is  omitted.  (Lard.  Cred.  vol.  viii,  p.  270.) 

"  And,  fifteen  years  after  Cyril,  the  council  of  Laodicea  delivered  an 
authoritative  catalogue  of  canonical  Scripture,  like  Cyril's,  the  same  as 
ours,  with  the  omission  of  the  '  Revelation.' 

"  Catalogues  now  become  frequent.  Within  thirty  years  after  the 
last  date,  that  is,  from  the  year  363  to  near  the  conclusion  of  the  fourth 
century,  we  have  catalogues  by  Epiphanius,  (Lard.  Cred.  vol.  viii,  p. 
368,)  by  Gregory  Nazianzen,  (Lard.  Cred.  vol.  ix,  p.  132,)  by  Philas- 
ter,  bishop  of  Brescia  in  Italy,  (Lard.  Cred.  vol.  ix,  p.  373,)  by  Amphi. 
lochius,  bishop  of  Iconium,  all,  as  they  are  sometimes  called,  clean 


FIRST.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  133 

catalogues,  (that  is,  they  admit  no  books  into  the  number  beside  what 
we  now  receive,)  and  all,  for  every  purpose  of  historic  evidence,  the 
same  as  ours.  (3) 

"  Within  the  same  period,  Jerome,  the  most  learned  Christian  writer 
of  his  age,  delivered  a  catalogue  of  the  books  of  the  New  Testament, 
recognizing  every  book  now  received,  with  the  intimation  of  a  doubt 
concerning  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  alone,  and  taking  not  the  least 
notice  of  any  book  which  is  not  now  received.  {Lard.  Cred,  vol.  x, 
P.  77.) 

"  Contemporary  with  Jerome,  who  lived  in  Palestine,  was  Saint  Au- 
gustine, in  Africa,  who  published  likewise  a  catalogue,  without  joining 
to  the  Scriptures,  as  books  of  authority,  any  other  ecclesiastical  writing 
whatever,  and  without  omitting  one  which  we  at  this  day  acknowledge. 
(Lard.  Cred.  vol.  x,  p.  213.) 

"  And  with  these  concurs  another  contemporary  writer,  Rufen,  pres- 
byter of  Aquileia,  whose  catalogue,  like  theirs,  is  perfect  and  unmixed, 
and  concludes  with  these  remarkable  words :  f  These  are  the  volumes 
which  the  fathers  have  included  in  the  canon,  and  out  of  which  they 
would  have  us  prove  the  doctrine  of  our  faith.' "  (Lard.  Cred.  vol.  x, 
page  187.) 

This,  it  is  true,  only  proves  that  the  books  are  substantially  the  same  ; 
but  the  evidence  is  abundant,  that  they  have  descended  to  us  without 
any  material  alteration  whatever. 

"  1.  Before  tliat  event,  [the  time  of  Christ,]  the  regard  which  was  paid 
to  them  by  the  Jews,  especially  to  the  law,  would  render  any  forgery 
or  material  change  in  their  contents  impossible.  The  law  having  been 
the  deed  by  which  the  land  of  Canaan  was  divided  among  the  Israelites, 
it  is  improbable  that  this  people  who  possessed  that  land,  would  suffer  it 
to  be  altered  or  falsified.  The  distinction  of  the  twelve  tribes,  and  their 
separate  interests,  made  it  more  difficult  to  alter  their  law  than  that  of 
other  nations  less  jealous  than  the  Jews.  Farther,  at  certain  stated 
seasons,  the  law  was  publicly  read  before  all  the  people  of  Israel,  Deut. 
xxxi,  9-13  ;  Joshua  viii,  34,  35  ;  Neh.  viii,  1-5  ;  and  it  was  appointed 
to  be  kept  in  the  ark,  for  a  constant  memorial  against  those  who  trans- 
gressed it,  Deut.  xxxi,  26.  Their  king  was  required  to  write  him  a 
copy  of  this  law  in  a  book,  out  of  that  which  is  before  the  prieste,  the 
Levites,  and  to  read  therein  all  the  days  of  his  life,  Deut.  xvii,  18, 
19;  their  priests  also  were  commanded  to  teach  the  children  of  Israel 
all  the  statutes,  which  the  Lord  had  spoken  to  them  by  the  hand  of  Moses, 
Levit.  x,  11  ;  and  parents  were  charged  not  only  to  make  it  familiar 
to  themselves,  but  also  to  teach  it  diligently  to  their  children,  Deut. 

(3)  Epiphanius  omits  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles.  This  must  have  been  an  acci- 
dental  mistake,  either  in  him  or  in  some  copyist  of  his  work ;  for  he  elsewhere 
expressly  refers  to  this  book,  and  ascribes  it  to  Luke 


+ 


MG  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

xvii,  18,  19;  beside  which,  a  severe  prohibition  was  annexed,  against 
either  making  any  addition  to,  or  diminution  from  the  law,  Deut.  iv,  2  ; 
xii,  32.      Now  such  precepts  as  these  could  not  have  been  given  by  an 
impostor  who  was  adding  to  it,  and  who  would  wish  men  to  forget 
rather  than  enjoin  them  to  remember  it :  for,  as  all  the  people  were 
obliged  to  know  and  observe  the  law  under  severe  penalties,  they  were, 
in  a  manner,  the  trustees  and  guardians  of  the  law,  as  well  as  the 
priests  and  Levites.       The  people,  who  were  to  teach  their  children, 
must  have   had  copies  of  it ;  the  priests  and  Levites  must  have  had 
copies  of  it ;  and  the  magistrates  must  have  had  copies  of  it,  as  being 
the  law  of  the  land.     Farther,  after  the  people  were  divided  into  two 
kingdoms,  both  the  people  of  Israel  and  those  of  Judah  still  retained 
the  san^e  book  of  the  law  :  and  the  rivalry  or  enmity  that  subsisted 
between  the  two  kingdoms,   prevented   either  of  them  from   altering 
or  adding  to  the  law.     After  the  Israelites   were  carried  captive  into 
Assyria,  other  nations  were  placed  in  the  cities  of  Samaria  in  their 
stead ;    and  the  Samaritans  received  the  Pentateuch,  either  from  the 
priest  who  was  sent  by  order  of  the  king  of  Assyria,  to  instruct  them  in 
the  manner  of  the  God  of  the  land,  2  Kings  xvii,  26,  or  several  years 
afterward  from  the  hands  of  Manasseh,   the  son  of  Joiada  the   high 
priest,  who  was  expelled  from  Jerusalem  by  Nehemiah,  for  marrying 
the  daughter  of  Sanballat,  the  governor  of  Samaria  ;  and  who  was  con- 
stituted,  by   Sanballat,  the   first  high  priest  of  the  temple  at  Samaria. 
(Neh.  viii,  28  ;  Josephus  Ant.  Jud.  lib.  xi,  c.  8  ;  Bishop  Newton's  Works, 
vol.  i,  p.  23.)     Now,  by  one  or  both  of  these  means,  the  Samaritans 
had  the  Pentateuch  as  well  as  the  Jews ;  but  with  this  difference,  that 
the  Samaritan  Pentateuch  was  in  the  old  Hebrew  or  Phenician  charac- 
ters, in  which  it  remains  to  this  day ;  whereas  the  Jewish  copy  was 
changed  into  Chaldee  characters,  (in  which  it  also  remains  to  this  day,) 
which  were  fairer  and  clearer  than  the  Hebrew,  the  Jews  having  learn- 
ed the  Chaldee  language  during  their  seventy  years  abode  in  Babylon. 
The  jealousy  and  hatred  which  subsisted  between  the  Jews  and  Sama- 
ritans, made  it  impracticable  for  either  nation  to  corrupt  or  alter  the 
text  in  any  thing  of  consequence  without  certain  discovery  ;    and  the 
general  agreement  between  the  Hebrew  and  Samaritan  copies  of  the 
Pentateuch,  which  are  now  extant,  is  such,  as  plainly  demonstrates  that 
the  copies  were  originally  the  same.    Nor  can  any  better  evidence  be  de- 
sired, that  the  Jewish  Bibles  have  not  been  corrupted  or  interpolated,  than 
this  very  book  of  the  Samaritans  ;  which,  after  more  than  two  thousand 
years  discord  between  the  two  nations,  varies  as  little  from  the  other  as 
any  classic  author  in  less  tract  of  time  has  disagreed  from  itself  by  the 
unavoidable  slips  and  mistakes  of  so  many  transcribers.  (4) 

(i)  Dr.  Bentley's  Remarks  on  Freethinking,  part  i,  remark  27,  (vol.  v,  p.  14-i, 
of  Bp.  Randolph's  Enchiridion  Theologicum,  8vo.  Oxford,  1792.) 


FIRST.]  THEOLOGICAL     INSTITUTES.  137 

"  After  the  return  of  the  Jews  from  the  Babylonish  captivity,  the  books 
of  the  law  and  the  prophets  were  publicly  read  in  their  synagogues 
every  Sabbath  day,  Acts  xiii,  14,  15,  27;  Luke  iv,  17-20;  which 
was  an  excellent  method  of  securing  their  purity,  as  well  as  of  enforcing 
the  observation  of  the  law.  The  Chaldee  paraphrases  and  the  transla- 
tion of  the  Old  Testament  into  Greek,  which  were  afterward  made,  were 
so  many  additional  securities.  To  these  facts  we  may  add,  that  the 
reverence  of  the  Jews  for  their  sacred  writings  is  another  guarantee  for 
their  integrity  :  so  great,  indeed,  was  that  reverence,  that,  according  to 
the  statements  of  Philo  and  Josephus,  (Philo,  apud  Euseb.  de  Prmp. 
Evang.  lib.  viii,  c.  2 ;  Josephus  contra  Apion.  lib.  i,  sec.  8,)  they  would 
suffer  any  torments,  and  even  death  itself,  rather  than  change  a  single 
point  or  iota  of  the  Scriptures.  A  law  was  also  enacted  by  them,  which 
denounced  him  to  be  guilty  of  inexpiable  sin,  who  should  presume  to 
make  the  slightest  possible  alteration  in  their  sacred  books.  The  Jew- 
ish  doctors,  fearing  to  add  any  thing  to  the  law,  passed  their  own  notions 
as  traditions  or  explanations  of  it ;  and  both  Jesus  Christ  and  his  apostles 
accused  the  Jews  of  entertaining  a  prejudiced  regard  for  those  traditions, 
but  they  never  charged  them  with  falsifying  or  corrupting  the  Scriptures 
themselves. 

"  2.  After  the  birth  of  Christ.  For,  since  that  event,  the  Old  Testa- 
ment has  been  held  in  high  esteem  both  by  Jews  and  Christians.  The 
Jews  also  frequently  suffered  martyrdom  for  their  Scriptures,  which  they 
would  not  have  done,  had  they  suspected  them  to  have  been  corrupted 
or  altered.  Beside,  the  Jews  and  Christians  were  a  mutual  guard  upon 
each  other,  which  must  have  rendered  any  material  corruption  impos- 
sible, if  it  had  been  attempted :  for  if  such  an  attempt  had  been  made 
by  the  Jews,  they  would  have  been  detected  by  the  Christians.  The 
accomplishment  of  such  a  design,  indeed,  would  have  been  impracticable 
from  the  moral  impossibility  of  the  Jews  (who  were  dispersed  in  every 
country  of  the  then  known  world)  being  able  to  collect  all  the  then 
existing  copies,  with  the  intention  of  corrupting  or  falsifying  them.  On 
the  other  hand,  if  any  such  attempt  had  been  made  by  the  Christians, 
it  would  assuredly  have  been  detected  by  the  Jews :  nor  could  any  such 
attempt  have  been  made  by  any  other  man  or  body  of  men,  without 
exposure  both  by  Jews  and  Christians.  To  these  considerations,  it  may 
be  added,  that  the  admirable  agreement  of  all  the  ancient  paraphrases 
and  versions,  and  the  writings  of  Josephus,  with  the  Old  Testament  as 
it  is  now  extant,  together  with  the  quotations  which  are  made  from  it  in 
the  New  Testament,  and  in  the  writings  of  all  ages  to  the  present  time, 
forbid  us  to  indulge  any  suspicion  of  any  material  corruption  in  the 
books  of  the  Old  Testament ;  and  give  us  every  possible  evidence  of 
which  a  subject  of  this  kind  is  capable,  that  these  books  are  now  in  our 
hands  genuine  and  unadulterated. 


138  THEOJLOCtlC&L  INSTITUTES.  [PART 

"  3.  Lastly,  the  agreement  of  all  the  manuscripts  of  the  Old  Testa- 
nient,  (amounting  to  nearly  eleven  hundred  and  fifty,)  which  are  known 
to  be  extant,  is  a  clear  proof  of  its  uncorrupted  preservation.  These 
manuscripts,  indeed,  are  not  all  entire  ;  some  contain  one  part,  and  some 
another.  But  it  is  absolutely  impossible  that  every  manuscript,  whether 
in  the  original  Hebrew,  or  in  any  ancient  version  or  paraphrase,  should 
or  could  be  designedly  altered  or  falsified  in  the  same  passages,  without 
detection  either  by  Jews  or  Christians.  The  manuscripts  now  extant 
are,  confessedly,  liable  to  errors  and  mistakes  from  the  carelessness, 
negligence,  or  inaccuracy  of  copyists ;  but  they  are  not  all  uniformly 
incorrect  throughout,  nor  in  the  same  words  or  passages ;  but  what  is 
incorrect  in  one  place  is  correct  in  another.  Although  the  various 
readings,  which  have  been  discovered  by  learned  men,  who  have  applied 
themselves  to  the  collection  of  every  known  manuscript  of  the  Hebrew 
Scriptures,  amount  to  many  thousands,  yet  these  differences  are  of  so 
little  real  moment,  that  their  laborious  collations  afford  us  scarcely  any 
opportunities  of  correcting  the  sacred  text  in  important  passages.  So  far, 
however,  are  these  extensive  and  profound  researches  from  being  either 
trivial  or  nugatory,  that  we  have  in  fact  derived  from  them  the  greatest 
advantage  which  could  have  been  wished  for  by  any  real  friend  of 
revealed  religion  ;  namely,  the  certain  knowledge  of  the  agreement  of 
the  copies  of  the  ancient  Scriptures,  now  extant  in  their  original  Ian- 
guage,  with  each  other,  and  with  our  Bibles.  (Bishop  Tomxine's  Ele. 
ments  of  Christ,  Theol.  vol  i,  p.  31.) 

"  Equally  satisfactory  is  the  evidence  for  the  integrity  and  uncorrupt- 
ness  of  the  New  Testament  in  any  thing  material.  The  testimonies, 
adduced  in  the  preceding  section  in  behalf  of  the  genuineness  and 
authenticity  of  the  New  Testament,  are,  in  a  great  measure,  applicable 
to  show  that  it  has  been  transmitted  to  us  entire  and  uncorrupted.  But. 
to  be  more  particular,  we  remark,  that  the  uncorrupted  preservation  of 
the  books  of  the  New  Testament  is  manifest, 

"  1.  From  their  contents ;  for,  so  early  as  the  two  first  centuries  ot 
the  Christian  era,  we  find  the  very  same  facts,  and  the  very  same  doc 
trines  universally  received  by  Christians,  which  we  of  the  present  day 
believe  on  the  credit  of  the  New  Testament. 

"  2.  Because  a  universal  corruption  of  those  writings  was  impossible,  nor 
can  the  least  vestige  of  such  a  corruption  be  found  in  history.  They  could 
not  be  corrupted  during  the  life  of  their  authors  ;  and  before  their  death, 
copies  were  dispersed  among  the  different  communities  of  Christians,  who 
were  scattered  throughout  the  then  known  world.  Within  twenty  years 
after  the  ascension,  Churches  were  formed  in  the  principal  cities  of  the 
Roman  empire  ;  and  in  all  these  Churches  the  books  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment,  especially  the  four  Gospels,  were  read  as  a  part  of  their  public 
worship,  just  as  the  writings  of  Moses  and  the  prophets  were  read  in 


FIRST.]  THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES.  139 

the  Jewish  synagogues.  (5)  Nor  would  the  use  of  them  be  confined  to 
public  worship ;  for  these  books  were  not,  like  the  Sybilline  oracles, 
locked  up  from  the  perusal  of  the  public,  but  were  exposed  to  public 
investigation.  When  the  books  of  the  New  Testament  were  first  pub- 
lished  to  the  world,  the  Christians  would  naturally  entertain  the  highest 
esteem  and  reverence  for  writings  that  delivered  an  authentic  and  inspired 
history  of  the  life  and  doctrines  of  Jesus  Christ,  and  would  be  desirous 
of  possessing  such  an  invaluable  treasure.  Hence,  as  we  learn  from 
unquestionable  authority,  copies  were  multiplied  and  disseminated  as 
rapidly  as  the  boundaries  of  the  Church  increased  ;  and  translations  were 
made  into  as  many  languages  as  were  spoken  by  its  professors,  some 
of  which  remain  to  this  day ;  so  that  it  would  very  soon  be  rendered 
absolutely  impossible  to  corrupt  these  books  in  any  one  important  word 
or  phrase.  Now,  it  is  not  to  be  supposed,  (without  violating  all  proba- 
bility,) that  all  Christians  should  agree  in  a  design  of  changing  or  cor- 
rupting the  original  books ;  and  if  some  only  should  make  the  attempt, 
the  uncorrupted  copies  would  still  remain  to  detect  them.  And  sup- 
posing there  was  some  error  in  one  translation  or  copy,  or  something 
changed,  added,  or  taken  away  ;  yet  there  were  many  other  copies  and 
other  translations,  by  the  help  of  which  the  neglect  or  fraud  might  be 
or  would  be  corrected. 

"  Farther,  as  these  books  could  not  be  corrupted  during  the  life  of 
their  respective  authors,  and  while  a  great  number  of  witnesses  were 
alive  to  attest  the  facts  which  they  record :  so  neither  could  any  mate- 
rial alteration  take  place  after  their  decease,  without  being  detected 
while  the  original  manuscripts  were  preserved  in  the  Churches.  The 
Christians  who  were  instructed  by  the  apostles  or  by  their  immediate 
successors,  travelled  into  all  parts  of  the  world,  carrying  with  them  co- 
pies of  their  writings ;  from  which  other  copies  were  multiplied  and 
preserved.  Now,  as  we  have  already  seen,  we  have  an  unbroken  series 
of  testimonies  for  the  genuineness  and  authenticity  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment, which  can  be  traced  backward,  from  the  fourth  century  of  the 
Christian  era  to  the  very  time  of  the  apostles  :  and  these  very  testimo- 
nies are  equally  applicable  to  prove  its  uncorrupted  preservation. 
Moreover,  harmonies  of  the  four  Gospels  were  anciently  constructed ; 
commentaries  were  written  upon  them,  as  well  as  upon  the  other  books 
of  the  New  Testament,  (many  of  which  are  still  extant,)  manuscripts 
were  collated,  and  editions  of  the  New  Testament  were  put  forth. 
These  sacred  records,  being  universally  regarded  as  the  supreme  stand- 
ard  of  truth,  were  received  by  every  class  of  Christians  with  peculiai 

(5)  Dr.  Lardnek  has  collected  numerous  instances  in  the  second  part  of  his  Cre- 
dibility of  the  Gospel  History  ;  references  to  which  may  be  seen  in  the  general 
index  to  his  works,  article  Scriptures.  See  particularly  the  testimonies  of  Justin 
Martyr,  Tertullian,  Origen,  and  Augustine 


140  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

respect,  as  being  Divine  compositions,  and  possessing  an  authority  be- 
longing to  no  other  books.  Whatever  controversies,  therefore,  arose 
among  different  sects,  (and  the  Church  was  very  early  rent  with  fierce 
contentions  on  doctrinal  points,)  the  Scriptures  of  the  New  Testament 
were  received  and  appealed  to  by  every  one  of  them,  as  being  conclu- 
sive in  all  matters  of  controversy  :  consequently  it  was  morally  impos- 
sible, that  any  man  or  body  of  men  should  corrupt  or  falsify  them  in  any 
fundamental  article,  should  foist  into  them  a  single  expression  to  favour 
their  peculiar  tenets,  or  erase  a  single  sentence,  without  being  detected 
by  thousands. 

"  If  any  material  alteration  had  been  attempted  by  the  orthodox,  it 
would  have  been  detected  by  the  heretics ;  and,  on  the  other  hand,  if  a 
heretic  had  inserted,  altered,  or  falsified  any  thing,  he  would  have  been 
exposed  by  the  orthodox,  or  by  other  heretics.  It  is  well  known  that  a 
division  commenced  in  the  fourth  century,  between  the  eastern  and 
western  Churches,  which,  about  the  middle  of  the  ninth  century,  became 
irreconcilable,  and  subsists  to  the  present  day.  Now,  it  would  have 
been  impossible  to  alter  all  the  copies  in  the  eastern  empire ;  and  if  it 
had  been  possible  in  the  east,  the  copies  in  the  west  would  have  detected 
the  alteration.  But,  in  fact,  both  the  eastern  and  western  copies  agree, 
which  could  not  be  expected  if  either  of  them  was  altered  or  falsified. 
The  uncorrupted  preservation  of  the  New  Testament  is  farther  evident, 

"  3.  From  the  agreement  of  all  the  manuscripts.  The  manuscripts 
of  the  New  Testament,  which  are  extant,  are  far  more  numerous  than 
those  of  any  single  classic  author  whomsoever ;  upward  of  three  hun- 
dred and  fifty  were  collected  by  Griesbach,  for  his  celebrated  critical 
edition.  These  manuscripts,  it  is  true,  are  not  all  entire  :  most  of  them 
contain  only  the  Gospels ;  others,  the  Gospels,  Acts  of  the  Apostles, 
and  the  Epistles ;  and  a  few  contain  the  Apocalypse  or  Revelation  of 
John.  But  they  were  all  written  in  very  different  and  distant  parts  of 
the  world  ;  several  of  them  are  upward  of  twelve  hundred  years  old,  and 
give  us  the  books  of  the  New  Testament,  in  all  essential  points,  per- 
fectly accordant  with  each  other,  as  any  person  may  readily  ascertain 
by  examining  the  critical  editions  published  by  Mill,  Kuster,  Bengel, 
Wetstein,  and  Griesbach.  The  thirty  thousand  various  readings  which 
are  said  to  be  found  in  the  manuscripts  collated  by  Dr.  Mill,  and  the 
hundred  and  fifty  thousand  which  Griesbach 's  edition  is  said  to  contain, 
in  no  degree  whatever  affect  the  general  credit  and  integrity  of  the  text. 
In  fact,  the  more  copies  are  multiplied,  and  the  more  numerous  the 
transcripts  and  translations  from  the  original,  the  more  likely  is  it,  that 
the  genuine  text  and  the  true  original  reading  will  be  investigated  and 
ascertained.  The  most  correct  and  accurate  ancient  classics  now  extant 
are  those  of  which  we  have  the  greatest  number  of  manuscripts ;  and 
the  most  depraved,  mutilated,  and  inaccurate  editions  of  the  old  writers 


FIRST.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  141 

are  those  of  which  we  have  the  fewest  manuscripts,  and  perhaps  only  a 
single  manuscript  extant.  Such  are  Athenaeus,  Clemens  Romanus,  He- 
sychius,  and  Photius.  But  of  this  formidable  mass  of  various  readings, 
which  have  been  collected  by  the  diligence  of  collators,  not  one  tenth, — 
nay,  not  one  hundredth  part,  either  makes  or  can  make  any  perceptible, 
or  at  least  any  material,  alteration  in  the  sense  in  any  modern  version. 
They  consist  almost  wholly  of  palpable  errors  in  transcription,  gramma- 
tical and  verbal  differences,  such  as  the  insertion  or  omission  of  an  article, 
the  substitution  of  a  word  for  its  equivalent,  and  the  transposition  of  a 
word  or  two  in  a  sentence.  Even  the  few  that  do  change  the  sense, 
affect  it  only  in  passages  relating  to  unimportant,  historical,  and  geogra- 
phical circumstances,  or  other  collateral  matters ;  and  the  still  smaller 
number  that  make  any  alteration  in  things  of  consequence,  do  not  on 
that  account  place  us  in  any  absolute  uncertainty.  For,  either  the  true 
reading  may  be  discovered  by  collating  the  other  manuscripts,  versions, 
and  quotations  found  in  the  works  of  the  ancients  ;  or,  should  these  fail 
'.o  give  us  the  requisite  information,  we  are  enabled  to  explain  the  doc- 
trine in  question  from  other  undisputed  passages  of  holy  writ. 

"  4.  The  last  testimony  to  be  adduced  for  the  integrity  and  uncorrupt- 
ness  of  the  New  Testament,  is  furnished  by  the  agreement  of  the  ancient 
versions  and  quotations  from  it,  which  are  made  in  the  writings  of  the 
Christians  of  the  first  three  centuries,  and  in  those  of  the  succeeding 
fathers  of  the  Church. 

"  The  testimony  of  versions,  and  the  evidence  of  the  ecclesiastical 
fathers,  have  already  been  noticed  as  a  proof  of  the  genuineness  and 
authenticity  of  the  New  Testament.  The  quotations  from  the  New  Tes- 
tament in  the  writings  of  the  fathers  are  so  numerous,  that  (as  it  has 
frequently  been  observed)  the  whole  body  of  the  Gospels  and  Epistles 
might  be  compiled  from  the  various  passages  dispersed  in  their  com- 
mentaries and  other  writings.  And  though  these  citations  were,  in  many 
insf  .nces,  made  from  memory,  yet,  being  always  made  with  due  atten- 
tion to  the  sense  and  meaning,  and  most  commonly  with  a  regard  to  the 
words  as  well  as  to  the  order  of  the  words,  they  correspond  with  the 
original  records  from  which  they  were  extracted  : — an  irrefragable  argu- 
ment this,  of  the  purity  and  integrity  with  which  the  New  Testament 
has  been  preserved."  (Horne's  Introduction  to  the  Critical  Study  and 
Knowledge  of  the  Holy  Scriptures,  vol.  i,  chap.  2,  sect.  3.) 


CHAPTER  XIV. 
Tuk  Credibility  of  the  Testimony  of  the  Sacred.  Writers. 

The  proofs  of  the  existence  and  actions  of  Moses  and  Christ,  the 
founders  of  the  Jewish  and  Christian  religions,  having  been  adduced, 


142  THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES.  [PART 

with  those  of  the  antiquity  and  uncorrupted  preservation  of  the  records 
which  profess  to  contain  the  facts  of  their  history,  and  the  doctrines 
they  taught,  the  only  question  to  be  determined  before  we  examine  those 
miracles  and  prophecies  on  which  the  claim  of  the  Divine  authority  of 
their  mission  rests,  is,  whether  these  records  faithfully  record  the  trans- 
actions of  which  they  give  us  information,  and  on  which  the  Divinity  of 
both  systems,  the  Jewish  and  the  Christian,  is  built.  To  deny  this  be- 
cause we  object  to  the  doctrines  taught,  is  equally  illogical  and  perverse, 
as  it  is  assuming  the  doctrine  to  be  false  before  we  have  considered  all 
the  evidence  which  may  be  adduced  in  its  favour ;  to  deny  it  because 
we  have  already  determined  to  reject  the  miracles,  is  equally  absurd  and 
impious.  It  has  already  been  proved,  that  miracles  are  possible ;  and 
whether  the  transactions  related  as  such  in  the  Scriptures  be  really 
miraculous  or  not,  is  a  subsequent  inquiry  to  that  which  respects  the 
faithful  recording  of  them.  If  the  evidence  of  this  is  insufficient,  the 
examination  of  the  miracles  is  unnecessary  ;  if  it  is  strong  and  convinc- 
ing, that  examination  is  a  subject  of  very  serious  import. 

We  might  safely  rest  the  faithfulness  of  the  Scriptural  record  upon 
the  argument  of  Leslie,  before  adduced  ;  but,  from  the  superabundance 
of  evidence  which  the  case  furnishes,  some  amplifications  may  be  added, 
which  we  shall  confine  principally  to  f^e  authors  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment. 

There  are  four  circumstances  which  never  fail  to  give  credibility  to 
a  witness,  whether  he  depose  to  any  thing  orally  or  in  writing : — 

1.  That  he  is  a  person  of  virtuous  and  sober  character. 

2.  That  he  was  in  circumstances  certainly  to  know  the  truth  of  what 
he  relates. 

3.  That  he  has  no  interest  in  making  good  the  story. 

4.  That  his  account  is  circumstantial. 

In  the  highest  degree  these  guarantees  of  faithful  and  exact  testimony 
meet  in  the  evangelists  and  apostles. 

That  they  were  persons  of  strict  and  exemplary  virtue,  must  by  all 
candid  persons  be  acknowledged  ;  so  much  so,  that  nothing  to  the  con- 
trary was  ever  urged  against  the  integrity  of  their  conduct  by  the  most 
malicious  enemies  of  Christianity.  Avarice  and  interest  could  not  sway 
them,  for  they  voluntarily  abandoned  all  their  temporal  connections,  and 
embarked  in  a  cause  which  the  world  regarded,  to  the  last  degree,  as 
wretched  and  deplorable.  Of  their  sincerity  they  gave  the  utmost  proof 
in  the  openness  of  their  testimony,  never  affecting  reserve,  or  shunning 
inquiry.  They  delivered  their  testier-  »ny  before  kings  and  princes, 
priests  and  magistrates,  in  Jerusalem  and  Judea,  where  their  Master 
lived  and  died,  and  in  the  most  populous,  inquisitive,  and  learned  parts 
of  the  world,  submitting  its  evidences  to  a  fair  and  impartial  examina- 
tion. 


FIRST.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  143 

"  Their  minds  were  so  penetrated  with  a  conviction  of  the  truth  of  the 
Gospel,  that  they  esteemed  it  their  distinguished  honour  and  privilege  to 
seal  their  attestation  to  it  by  their  sufferings,  and  blessed  God  that  they 
were  accounted  worthy  to  suffer  reproach  and  shame  for  their  profes- 
sion. Passing  through  honour  and  dishonour,  through  evil  report  and 
good  report,  as  deceivers  and  yet  true.  Never  dejected,  never  intimi- 
dated by  any  sorrows  and  sufferings  they  supported  ;  but  when  stoned, 
imprisoned,  and  persecuted  in  one  city,  flying  to  another,  and  there 
preaching  the  Gospel  with  intrepid  boldness  and  heaven-inspired  zeal. 
Patient  in  tribulation,  fervent  in  spirit,  rejoicing  under  persecution,  calm 
and  composed  under  calumny  and  reproach,  praying  for  their  enemies, 
when  in  dungeons  cheering  the  silent  hours  of  night  with  hymns  of 
praise  to  God.  Meeting  death  itself  in  the  most  dreadful  forms  with 
which  persecuting  rage  could  dress  it,  with  a  serenity  and  exultation  the 
Stoic  philosophy  never  knew.  In  all  these  public  scenes  showing  to  the 
world  a  heart  infinitely  above  what  men  vulgarly  style  great  and  happy, 
infinitely  remote  from  ambition,  the  lust  of  gold,  and  a  passion  for  popu- 
lar applause,  working  with  their  own  hands  to  raise  a  scanty  subsistence 
for  themselves  that  they  might  not  be  burdensome  to  the  societies  they 
had  formed,  holding  up  to  all  with  whom  they  conversed,  in  the  bright 
faithful  mirror  of  their  own  behaviour,  the  amiableness  and  excellency 
of  the  religion  they  taught,  and  in  every  scene  and  circumstance  of  life 
distinguished  for  their  devotion  to  God,  their  unconquered  love  for  man- 
kind, their  sacred  regard  for  truth,  their  self  government,  moderation, 
humanity,  sincerity,  and  every  Divine,  social,  and  moral  virtue  that  can 
adorn  and  exalt  a  character.  Nor  are  there  any  features  of  enthusiasm 
in  the  writings  they  have  left  us.  We  meet  with  no  frantic  fervours 
indulged,  no  monkish  abstraction  from  the  world  recommended,  no  ma- 
ceration of  the  body  countenanced,  no  unnatural  institutions  established, 
no  vain  flights  of  fancy  cherished,  no  absurd  and  irrational  doctrines 
taught,  no  disobedience  to  any  forms  of  human  government  encouraged, 
but  all  civil  establishments  and  social  connections  suffered  to  remain  in 
the  same  state  they  were  before  Christianity.  So  far  were  the  apostles 
from  being  enthusiasts,  and  instigated  by  a  wild  undiscerning  religious 
phrenzy  to  rush  into  the  jaws  of  death,  when  they  might  have  honour- 
ably and  lawfully  escaped  it,  that  we  find  them,  when  they  could,  without 
wounding  their  consciences,  legally  extricate  themselves  from  persecu- 
tion and  death,  pleading  their  privileges  as  Roman  citizens,  and  appeal- 
ing to  Cesar's  supreme  jurisdiction."  (Hakwood's  Introduction  to  the 
New  Testament.) 

As  it  was  contrary  to  their  character  to  attempt  to  deceive  others,  so 
they  could  not  be  deceived  themselves.  They  could  not  mistake  in  the 
case  of  feeding  of  the  five  thousand,  and  the  sudden  healing  of  lepers, 
and  lame  and  blind  persons ;  they  could  not  but  know,  whether  he  with 


144  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

whom  they  conversed  for  forty  days  was  the  same  Jesus,  as  he  with 
whom  they  had  daily  and  familiar  intercouse  long  before  his  crucifixion. 
They  could  not  mistake  as  to  his  ascension  into  heaven ;  as  to  the  fact 
whether  they  themselves  were  suddenly  endowed  with  the  power  of 
speaking  in  languages  which  they  had  never  acquired ;  and  whether 
they  were  able  to  work  miracles,  and  to  impart  the  same  power  to 
others. 

They  were  not  only  disinterested  in  their  testimony  ;  but  their  inte- 
rests were  on  the  side  of  concealment.  One  of  the  evangelists,  Mat- 
thew,  occupied  a  lucrative  situation  when  called  by  Jesus,  and  was  evi- 
dently an  opulent  man ;  the  fishermen  of  Galilee  were  at  least  in  cir- 
cumstances of  comfort,  and  never  had  any  worldly  inducement  held 
out  to  them  by  their  Master ;  Nicodemus  was  a  ruler  among  the  Jews ; 
Joseph  of  Arimathea  "  a  rich  man ;"  and  St.  Paul,  both  from  his  edu- 
cation, connections,  and  talents,  had  encouraging  prospects  in  life  :  but 
of  himself,  and  of  his  fellow  labourers,  he  speaks,  and  describes  all  the 
earthly  rewards  they  obtained  for  testifying  both  to  Jews  and  Greeks 
that  Jesus  was  the  Christ, — "  Even  unto  this  present  hour  we  both  hun- 
ger and  thirst,  and  are  naked,  and  are  buffeted,  and  have  no  certain 
dwelling  place  ;  we  are  made  as  the  filth  of  the  vx>rld,  and  are  the  off. 
scouring  of  all  things  unto  this  day."  Finally,  they  sealed  their  testi- 
mony in  many  instances  with  their  blood,  a  circumstance  of  which  they 
had  been  forewarned  by  their  Master,  and  in  the  daily  expectation  of 
which  they  lived.  From  this  the  conclusion  of  Dr.  Paley  is  irresistible, 
"  These  men  could  not  be  deceivers.  By  only  not  bearing  testimony 
they  might  have  avoided  all  their  sufferings,  and  have  lived  quietly. 
Would  men  in  such  circumstances  pretend  to  have  seen  what  they  never 
saw  ;  assert  facts  of  which  they  had  no  knowledge ;  go  about  lying,  to 
teach  virtue ;  and  though  not  only  convinced  of  Christ's  being  an  im- 
postor, but  having  seen  the  success  of  his  imposture  in  his  crucifixion, 
yet  persist  in  carrying  it  on,  and  so  persist  as  to  bring  upon  themselves, 
for  nothing  and  with  a  full  knowledge  of  the  consequence,  enmity  and 
hatred,  danger  and  death  ?" 

To  complete  the  character  of  their  testimony,  it  is  in  the  highest  de- 
gree  circumstantial.  We  never  find  that  forged  or  false  accounts  of 
things  abound  in  particularities  ;  and  where  many  particulars  are  related 
of  time,  place,  persons,  &c,  there  is  always  a  strong  presumption  of 
truth,  and  on  the  contrary.  Here  the  evidence  is  more  than  presumptive. 
The  history  of  the  evangelists  and  of  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  is  so  fui 
of  reference  to  persons  then  living,  and  often  persons  of  consequence, 
to  places  in  which  miracles  and  other  transactions  took  place  publicly 
and  not  in  secret ;  and  the  application  of  all  these  facts  by  the  first  pro- 
pagators of  the  Christian  religion  to  give  credit  to  its  Divine  authority 
was  so  frequent  and  explicit,  and  often  so  reproving  to  their  opposeis, 


FIRST.]  THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES.  146 

that  if  they  had  not  been  true  they  must  have  been  contradicted  ;  and 
if  contradicted  on  good  evidence,  the  authors  must  have  been  over- 
whelmed with  confusion.  This  argument  is  rendered  the  stronger 
when  it  is  considered  that  "  these  things  were  not  done  in  a  corner,** 
nor  was  the  age  dark  and  illiterate  and  prone  to  admit  fables.  The 
Augustan  age  was  the  most  learned  the  world  ever  saw.  The  love  of" 
arts,  sciences,  and  literature,  was  the  universal  passion  in  almost  every 
part  of  the  Roman  empire,  where  Christianity  was  first  taught  in  its- 
doctrines,  and  proclaimed  in  its  facts ;  and  in  this  inquisitive  and  dis- 
cerning era,  it  rose,  flourished,  and  established  itself,  with  much  resist- 
ance to  its  doctrines,  but  without  being  once  questioned  as  to  the  truth 
of  its  historical  facts. 

Yet  how  easily  might  they  have  been  disproved  had  they  been  false — 
that  Herod  the  Great  was  not  the  sovereign  of  Judea  when  our  Lord  was 
born — that  wise  men  from  the  east  did  not  come  to  be  informed  of  the 
place  of  his  birth — and  that  Herod  did  not  convene  the  sanhedrim,  to 
inquire  where  their  expected  Messiah  was  to  be  born — that  the  infants 
in  Bethlehem  were  not  massacred — that  in  the  time  of  Augustus  all 
Judea  was  not  enrolled  by  an  imperial  edict — that  Simeon  did  not  take 
the  infant  in  his  arms  and  proclaim  him  to  be  the  expected  salvation  of 
Israel,  which  is  stated  to  have  been  done  publicly  in  the  temple,  before 
all  the  people — that  the  numerous  persons,  many  of  whose  names  are 
mentioned,  and  some  the  relatives  of  rulers  and  centurions,  were  not 
miraculously  healed  nor  raised  from  the  dead — that  the  resurrection  of 
Lazarus,  stated  to  have  been  done  publicly,  near  to  Jerusalem,  and  him- 
self a  respectable  person,  well  known,  did  not  occur — that  the  circum- 
stances of  the  trial,  condemnation,  and  crucifixion  of  Christ,  did  not  take 
place  as  stated  by  his  disciples  ;  in  particular,  that  Pilate  did  not  wash 
his  hands  before  them  and  give  his  testimony  to  the  character^of  our 
Lord  ;  that  there  was  no  preternatural  darkness  from  twelve  to  three  in 
the  afternoon  on  the  day  of  the  crucifixion  ;  and  that  there  was  no  earth- 
quake ;  facts  which  if  they  did  not  occur  could  have  been  contradicted 
by  thousands :  finally,  that  these  well-known  unlettered  men,  the  apostles, 
were  not  heard  to  speak  with  tongues  by  many  who  were  present  in  the 
assembly  in  which  this  was  said  to  take  place.  But  we  might  select 
almost  all  the  circumstances  out  of  the  four  Gospels  and  the  Acts  of  the 
Apostles,  and  show,  that  for  the  most  part  they  were  capable  of  being 
contradicted  at  the  time  when  they  were  first  published,  and  that  the 
immense  number  of  circumstances  mentioned  would  in  aftertimes  have 
furnished  acute  investigators  of  the  history  with  the  means  of  detecting 
its  falsehood  had  it  not  been  indubitable,  either  by  comparing  the  differ- 
ent relations  with  each  other,  or  with  some  well  authenticated  facts  of 
accredited  collateral  history.  On  the  contrary,  the  small  variations  in 
the  story  of  the  evangelists  are  confirmations  of  their  testimonv,  being 

Vol.  I.  10 


146  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

in  proof  that  there  was  no  concert  among  them  to  impose  upon  the 
world,  and  they  do  not  affect  in  the  least  the  facts  of  the  history  itself; 
while  as  far  as  collateral,  or  immediately  subsequent  history  ha.:  given 
its  evidence,  we  have  already  seen,  that  it  is  confirmatory  of  the  exact- 
ness and  accuracy  of  the  sacred  penmen. 

For  all  these  reasons,  the  Scriptures  of  the  Old  and  New  Testaments 
are  to  be  taken  as  a  faithful  and  uncorrupted  record  of  the  transactions 
they  exhibit ;  and  nothing  now  appears  to  be  necessary,  but  that  this 
record  be  examined  in  order  to  determine  its  claims  to  be  admitted  as 
the  deposit  of  the  standing  revelations  of  the  will  of  God  to  mankind. 
The  evidence  of  the  genuineness  and  authenticity  of  the  books  of  which 
it  is  composed,  at  least  such  of  them  as  is  necessary  to  the  argument, 
is  full  and  complete ;  and  if  certain  of  the  facts  which  they  detail  are 
proved  to  he  really  miraculous,  and  the  prophecies  they  record  are  in 
the  proper  sense  predictive,  then,  according  to  the  principles  before 
established,  the  conclusion  must  be,  that  the  doctrines  which  they 
attest  are  Divine.  This  shall  be  the  next  subject  examined  ;  minor 
objections  being  postponed  to  be  answered  in  a  subsequent  chapter. 


CHAPTER   XV. 

The  Miracles  of  Scripture. 

It  has  been  already  proved  that  miracles  are  possible,  that  they  are 
appropriate,  necessary,  and  satisfactory  evidences  of  a  revelation  from 
God :  and  that,  like  other  facts,  they  are  capable  of  being  authenticated 
by  credible  testimony.  These  points  having  been  established,  the  main 
questiolfe  before  us  are,  whether  the  facts  alleged  as  miraculous  in  the 
Old  and  New  Testaments  have  a  sufficient  claim  to  that  character,  and 
whether  they  were  wrought  in  confirmation  of  the  doctrine  and  mission 
of  the  founders  of  the  Jewish  and  Christian  religions. 

That  definition  of  a  true  miracle  which  we  have  adopted,  may  here 
be  conveniently  repeated  : — 

A  miracle  is  an  effect  or  event  contrary  to  the  established  constitution 
or  course  of  things,  or  a  sensible  suspension  or  controlment  of,  or  devia- 
tion from,  the  known  laws  of  nature,  wrought  either  by  the  immediate  actt 
or  by  tlie  concurrence,  or  by  the  permission  of  God,  for  the  proof  or  evi- 
dence of  some  particular  doctrine,  or  in  attestation  of  the  authority  of 
some  particular  person. 

The  force  of  the  argument  from  miracles  lies  in  this — that  as  such 
works  are  manifestly  above  human  power,  and  as  no  created  being  can 
effect  them,  unless  empowered  by  the  Author  of  nature,  when  they  are 
wrought  for  such  an  end  as  that  mentioned  in  the  definition,  they  are  to 


FIRST.]  THEOLOGICAL     INSTITUTES.  147 

be  considered  as  authentications  of  a  Divine  mission  by  a  special  and 
sensible  interposition  of  God  himself. 

To  adduce  all  the  extraordinary  works  wrought  by  Moses  and  by 
Christ  would  be  unnecessary.  In  those  we  select  for  examination,  the 
miraculous  character  will  sufficiently  appear  to  bring  them  within  our 
definition  ;  and  it  will  be  recollected  that  it  has  been  already  established 
that  the  books  which  contain  the  account  of  these  facts  must  have  been 
written  by  their  reputed  authors,  and  that  had  not  the  facts  themselves 
occurred  as  there  related,  it  is  impossible  that  the  people  of  the  affe  in 
which  the  accounts  of  them  were  published  coula  have  been  brought  to 
believe  them.  On  the  basis  then  of  the  arguments  already  adduced  to 
prove  these  great  points,  it  is  concluded  that  we  have  in  the  Scriptures 
a  true  relation  of  the  facts  themselves.  Nothing  therefore  remains  but 
to  establish  their  claims  as  miracles. 

Out  of  the  numerous  miracles  wrought  by  the  agency  of  Moses  we 
select,  in  addition  to  those  before  mentioned  in  chapter  ix,  the  plague 
of  darkness.  Two  circumstances  are  to  be  noted  in  the  relation 
given  of  this  event,  Exodus  x.  It  continued  three  days,  and  it  afflicted 
the  Egyptians  only,  for  "  all  the  children  of  Israel  had  light  in  their 
dwellings."  The  fact  here  mentioned  was  of  the  most  public  kind : 
and  had  it  not  taken  place,  every  Egyptian  and  every  Israelite  could 
hai1^  contradicted  the  account.  The  phenomenon  was  not  produced  by 
an  eclipse  of  the  sun,  for  no  eclipse  of  that  luminary  can  endure  so  long. 
Some  of  the  Roman  writers  mention  a  darkness  by  day  so  great  that 
persons  were  unable  to  know  each  other;  but  we  have  no  historical 
account  of  any  other  darkness  so  long  continued  as  this,  and  so  intense, 
that  the  Egyptians  "  rose  not  up  from  their  places  for  three  days." 
But  if  any  such  circumstance  had  agaiti  occurred,  and  a  natural  cause 
could  have  been  assigned  for  it,  yet  even  then  the  miraculous  character 
of  this  event  would  remain  unshaken ;  for  to  what  but  to  a  supernatural 
cause  could  the  distinction  made  between  the  Israelites  and  the  Egyptians 
be  attributed,  when  they  inhabited  a  portion  of  the  same  country,  and 
when  their  neighbourhoods  were  immediately  adjoining  ?  Here  then 
are  the  characters  of  a  true  miracle.  The  established  course  of  natural 
causes  and  effects  is  interrupted  by  an  operation  upon  that  mighty 
element,  the  atmosphere.  That  it  was  not  a  chance  irregularity  in 
nature,  is  made  apparent  from  the  effect  following  the  volition  of  a  man 
acting  in  the  name  of  the  Lord  of  nature,  and  from  its  being  restrained 
by  that  to  a  certain  part  of  the  same  country — "  Moses  stretched  <ni>.  his 
hand,"  and  the  darkness  prevailed,  every  where  but  in  the  dwellings  of 
his  own  people.  The  fact  has  been  established  by  former  arguments , 
and  the  fact  being  allowed,  the  miracle  oC  necessity  follows. 

The  destruction  of  the  first  born  of  the  Egyptians  may  be  next 
considered.     Here  too  are  several  circumstances  to  be  carefully  noted 


148  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  (PARI 

This  judgment  was  threatened  in  the  presence  of  Pharaoh,  before  any  of 
the  other  plagues  were  brought  upon  him  and  his  people.  The  Israelites 
also  were  forewarned  of  it.  They  were  directed  to  slay  a  lamb, 
sprinkle  the  blood  upon  their  door  posts,  and  prepare  for  their  departure 
that  same  night.  The  stroke  was  inflicted  upon  the  first  born  of  the 
Egyptians  only,  and  not  upon  any  other  part  of  the  family — it  occurred 
in  the  same  hour — the  first  born  of  the  Israelites  escaped  without  ex- 
ception— and  the  festival  of  "  the  passover"  was  from  that  night  insti- 
tuted in  remembrance  of  the  event.  Such  a  festival  could  not  in  the 
nature  of  the  thing  be  established  in  any  subsequent  age,  in  commemo- 
ration of  an  event  which  never  occurred  ;  and  if  instituted  at  the  time, 
the  event  must  have  taken  place,  for  by  no  means  could  this  large  body 
of  men  have  been  persuaded  that  their  first  born  had  been  saved  and 
those  of  the  Egyptians  destroyed,  if  the  facts  had  not  been  before  their 
eyes.  The  history  therefore  being  established,  the  miracle  follows  ;  for 
the  order  of  nature  is  sufficiently  known  to  warrant  the  conclusion,  that, 
if  a  pestilence  were  to  be  assumed  as  the  agent  of  this  calamity,  an 
epidemic  disease,  however  rapid  and  destructive,  comes  not  upon  the 
threat  of  a  mortal,  and  makes  no  such  selection  as  the  first  born  of 
every  family. 

The  miracle  of  dividing  the  waters  of  the  Red  Sea  has  already  been 
mentioned,  but  merits  more  particular  consideration.  In  this  event  we 
observe,  as  in  the  others,  circumstances  which  exclude  all  possibility  of 
mistake  or  collusion.  The  subject  of  the  miracle  is  the  sea ;  the  wit- 
nesses of  it  the  host  of  Israel,  who  passed  through  on  foot,  and  the 
Egyptian  nation,  who  lost  their  king  and  his  whole  army.  The  miracu- 
lous characters  of  the  event  are : — The  waters  are  divided,  and  stand 
up  on  each  side ; — the  instrument  is  a  strong  east  wind,  which  begins 
its  opeimion  upon  the  waters  at  the  stretching  out  of  the  hand  of  Moses, 
and  ceases  at  the  same  signal,  and  that  at  the  precise  moment  when 
»he  return  of  the  waters  would  be  most  fatal  to  the  Egyptian  pursuing 
army. 

It  has,  indeed,  been  asked  whether  there  were  not  some  ledges  of 
rocks  whtre  the  water  was  shallow,  so  that  an  army,  at  particular  times, 
might  pass  over ;  and  whether  the  Etesian  winds,  which  blow  strongly 
all  summer  from  the  northwest,  might  not  blow  so  violently  against  the 
sea  as  to  keep  it  back  "  on  a  heap."  But  if  there  were  any  force  in 
these  questions,  it  is  plain  that  such  suppositions  would  leave  the  de- 
struction of  the  Egyptians  unaccounted  for.  To  show  that  there  is  no 
weight  in  them  at  all,  let  the  place  where  the  passage  of  the  Red  Sea 
was  effected  be  first  noted.  Some  fix  H  near  Suez,  at  the  head  of  the 
gulf;  but  if  there  were  satisfactory  evidence  of  this,  it  ought  also  to  be 
taken  into  the  account,  that  formerly  the  gulf  extended  at  least  twenty- 
five  miles  north  of  Suez,  the  place  where  it  terminates  at  present. 


FIRST.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  149 

(Lord  Valentia's  Travels,  vol.  iii,  p.  344.)  But  the  names  of  places 
as  well  as  tradition,  fix  the  passage  about  ten  hours' journey  lower  down, 
at  Clysma,  or  the  valley  of  Bedea.  The  name  given  by  Moses  to  the 
place  where  the  Israelites  encamped  before  the  sea  was  divided,  was 
Pihahiroth,  which  signifies  "  the  mouth  of  the  ridge,"  or  of  that  chain 
of  mountains  which  line  the  western  coast  of  the  Red  Sea ;  and  as 
there  is  but  one  mouth  of  that  chain  through  which  an  immense  multi- 
tude of  men,  women,  and  children,  could  possibly  pass  when  flying 
before  their  enemies,  there  can  be  no  doubt  whatever  respecting  the 
situation  of  Pihahiroth ;  and  the  modern  names  of  conspicuous  places 
in  its  neighbourhood  prove,  that  those,  by  whom  such  names  were  given, 
believed  that  this  was  the  place  at  which  the  Israelites  passed  the  sea  in 
safety,  and  where  Pharaoh  was  drowned.  Thus,  we  have  close  by 
Pihahiroth,  on  the  western  side  of  the  gulf,  a  mountain  called  Attaka, 
which  signifies  deliverance.  On  the  eastern  coast  opposite  is  a  head- 
land called  Ras  Musa,  or  "the  Cape  of  Moses;"  somewhat  lower, 
Harnam  Faraun,  "  Pharaoh's  Springs ;"  while  at  these  places,  the 
general  name  of  the  gulf  itself  is  Bahr-al-Kolsum,  "  the  Bay  of  Sub- 
mersion," in  which  there  is  a  whirlpool  called  Birket  Faraun,  "  the  Pool 
of  Pharaoh."  This,  then,  wras  the  passage  of  the  Israelites;  and  the 
depth  of  the  sea  here  is  stated  by  Bruce,  who  may  be  consulted  as  to 
these  localities,  at  about  fourteen  fathoms,  and  the  breadth  at  between 
three  and  four  leagues.  But  there  is  no  "  ledge  of  rocks,"  and  as  to 
the  "Etesian  wind,"  the  same  traveller  observes,  "If  the  Etesian  wind 
blowing  from  the  northwest  in  summer,  could  keep  the  sea  as  a  wall,  on 
the  right,  of  fifty  feet  high,  still  the  difficulty  would  remain  of  building 
the  wall  to  the  left,  or  to  the  north.  If  the  Etesian  winds  had  done  this 
once,  they  must  have  repeated  it  many  a  time  before  or  since,  from  the 
same  causes."  The  wind  which  actually  did  blow,  according  to  the 
history,  either  as  an  instrument  of  dividing  the  waters,  or,  which  is  more 
probable,  as  the  instrument  of  drying  the  ground,  after  the  waters  were 
divided  by  the  immediate  energy  of  the  Divine  power,  was  not  a  north 
wind,  but  an  "  east  wind ;"  and  as  Dr.  Hales  observes,  "  seems  to  be 
introduced  by  way  of  anticipation,  to  exclude  the  natural  agency  which 
might  be  afterward  resorted  to  for  solving  the  miracle  ;  for  it  is  remark- 
able that  the  monsoon  in  the  Red  Sea  blows  the  summer  half  of  the  year 
from  the  north,  and  the  winter  half  from  the  south,  neither  of  which 
could  produce  the  miracle  in  question." 

The  miraculous  character  of  this  event  is,  therefore,  most  strongly 
marked.  An  expanse  of  water,  and  that  water  a  sea,  of  from  nine  to 
twelve  miles  broad,  known  to  be  exceedingly  subject  to  agitations,  is 
divided,  and  a  wall  of  water  is  formed  on  each  hand,  affording  a  passage- 
on  dry  land  for  the  Israelites.  The  phenomenon  occurs  too  just  as  the 
Egyptian  host  are  on  the  point  of  overtaking  the  fugitives,  and  ceases  at 


150  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

the  moment  when  the  latter  reach  the  opposite  shore  in  safety,  and 
when  their  enemies  are  in  the  midst  of  the  passage,  in  the  only  position 
in  which  the  closing  of  the  wall  of  waters  on  each  side  could  insure  the 
entire  destruction  of  so  large  a  force  ! 

The  falling  of  the  manna  in  the  wilderness  for  forty  years,  is  another 
unquestionable  miracle,  and  one  in  which  there  could  be  neither  mistake 
on  the  part  of  those  who  were  sustained  by  it,  nor  fraud  on  the  part  of 
Moses.  That  this  event  was  not  produced  by  the  ordinary  course  of 
nature,  is  rendered  certain  by  the  fact,  that  the  same  wilderness  has 
been  travelled  by  individuals,  and  by  large  bodies  of  men,  from  the 
earliest  ages  to  the  present,  but  no  such  supply  of  food  was  ever  met 
with,  except  on  this  occasion ;  and  its  miraculous  character  is  farther 
marked  by  the  following  circumstances : — 1.  That  it  fell  but  six  days  in 
the  week  :  2.  That  it  fell  in  such  prodigious  quantities  as  sustained  three 
millions  of  souls :  3.  That  there  fell  a  double  quantity  every  Friday,  to 
serve  the  Israelites  for  the  next  day,  which  was  their  Sabbath :  4.  That 
what  was  gathered  on  the  first  five  days  of  the  week  stank  and  bred 
worms,  if  kept  above  one  day ;  but  that  which  was  gathered  on  Friday 
kept  sweet  for  two  days  :  and  5.  That  it  continued  falling  while  the 
Israelites  remained  in  the  wilderness,  but  ceased  as  soon  as  they  came 
out  of  it,  and  got  corn  to  eat  in  the  land  of  Canaan.  ( Universal  History, 
1.  1,  c.  7.)  Let  these  very  extraordinary  particulars  be  considered,  and 
they  at  once  confirm  the  fact,  while  they  unequivocally  establish  the 
miracle.  No  people  could  be  deceived  in  these  circumstances ;  no  per- 
son could  persuade  them  of  their  truth,  if  they  had  not  occurred  ;  and 
the  whole  was  so  clearly  out  of  the  regular  course  of  nature,  as  to  mark 
unequivocally  the  interposition  of  God.  To  the  majority  of  the  nume- 
rous miracles  recorded  in  the  Old  Testament,  the  same  remarks  apply, 
and  upon  them  the  same  miraculous  characters  are  as  indubitably  im- 
pressed. If  we  proceed  to  those  of  Christ,  the  evidence  becomes,  if 
possible,  more  indubitable.  They  were  clearly  above  the  power  of 
either  human  agency  or  natural  causes  :  they  were  public :  they  were 
such  as  could  not  admit  of  collusion  or  deception  :  they  were  performed 
under  such  circumstances  as  rendered  it  impossible  for  the  witnesses  and 
reporters  of  them  to  mistake  :  they  were  often  done  in  the  presence  of 
malignant,  scrutinizing,  and  intelligent  enemies,  the  Jewish  rulers,  who 
acknowledged  the  facts,  but  attributed  them  to  an  evil,  supernatural 
agency ;  and  there  is  no  interruption  in  the  testimony,  from  the  age  in 
which  they  were  wrought,  to  this  day.  It  would  be  trifling  with  the 
reader  to  examine  instances  so  well  known  in  their  circumstances,  for  the 
slightest  recollection  of  the  feeding  of  the  multitudes  in  the  desert ; — the 
healing  of  the  paralytic,  who,  because  of  the  multitude,  was  let  down  from 
the  house  top  ; — the  instant  cure  of  the  withered  hand  in  the  synagogue, 
near  Jerusalem,  where  the  Pharisees  were  *  watching  our  Lord  whether 


FIRST.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  151 

he  would  heal  on  the  Sabbath  day  ;" — the  raising  from  the  dead  of  the 
daughter  of  Jairus,  the  widow's  son,  and  Lazarus ;  and  many  other  in- 
stances of  miraculous  power, — will  be  sufficient  to  convince  any  ingenu- 
ous mind,  that  all  the  characters  of  real  and  adequately  attested  miracles 
meet  in  them.  That  great  miracle,  the  resurrection  of  our  Lord  him- 
self from  the  dead,  so  often  appealed  to  by  the  first  teachers  of  his 
religion,  may,  however,  be  here  properly  adduced,  with  its  convincing 
and  irrefragable  circumstances,  as  completing  this  branch  of  the 
external  evidence. 

That  it  is  a  miracle  in  its  highest  sense  for  a  person  actually  dead  to 
raise  himself  again  to  life,  cannot  be  doubted  ;  and  when  wrought,  as 
the  raising  of  Christ  was,  in  attestation  of  a  Divine  commission,  it  is 
evidence  of  the  most  irrefragable  kind.  So  it  has  been  regarded  by 
unbelievers,  who  have  bent  all  their  force  against  it ;  and  so  it  was 
regarded  by  Divine  Providence,  who  rendered  its  proofs  ample  and  indu- 
bitable in  proportion  to  its  importance.  Let  us,  then,  examine  the  cir- 
cumstances as  recorded  in  the  history. 

In  the  first  place,  the  reality  of  Christ's  death  is  circumstantially 
and  fully  stated,  though  if  no  circumstantial  evidence  had  been  adduced, 
it  is  not  to  be  supposed  that  they,  who  had  sought  his  death  with  so 
much  eagerness,  would  be  inattentive  to  the  full  execution  of  the  sentence 
for  which  they  had  clamoured.  The  execution  was  public ;  he  was 
crucified  with  common  malefactors,  in  the  usual  place  of  execution  ; 
the  soldiers  brake  not  his  legs,  the  usual  practice  when  they  would 
hasten  the  death  of  the  malefactor,  observing  that  he  was  dead  already. 
His  enemies  knew  that  he  had  predicted  his  resurrection,  and  would 
therefore  be  careful  that  he  should  not  be  removed  from  the  cross  before 
death  had  actually  taken  place ;  and  Pilate  refused  to  deliver  the  body 
for  burial  until  he  had  expressly  inquired  of  the  officer  on  duty,  whether 
he  were  already  dead.  Nor  was  he  taken  away  to  an  unknown  or  dis- 
tant tomb.  Joseph  of  Arimathea  made  no  secret  of  the  place  where 
he  had  buried  him.  It  was  in  his  own  family  tomb,  and  the  Pharisees 
knew  where  to  direct  the  watch  which  was  appointed  to  guard  the  body 
agair.ot  the  approach  of  his  disciples.  The  reality  of  the  death  of  Christ 
is  therefore  established. 

2.  But  by  both  parties,  by  the  Pharisees  on  the  one  part,  and  by  the 
disciples  on  the  other,  it  was  agreed,  that  the  body  was  missing,  and  that, 
in  the  state  of  death,  it  was  never  more  seen !  The  sepulchre  was  made 
sure,  the  stone  at  the  mouth  being  sealed,  and  a  watch  of  sixty  Roman 
soldiers  appointed  to  guard  it,  and  yet  the  body  was  not  to  be  found. 
Let  us  see,  then,  how  each  party  accounts  for  this  fact.  The  disciples 
affirm,  that  two  of  their  company,  going  early  in  the  morning  to  the 
sepulchre  to  embalm  the  body,  saw  an  angel  descend  and  roll  away  the 
stone,  sit  upon  it,  and  invite  them  to  see  the  place  where  their  Lord  had 


152  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

• 

lain,  informing  them  that  he  was  risen,  and  commanding  them  to  tell  the 
other  disciples  of  the  fact ; — that  others  went  to  the  sepulchre,  and  found 
not  the  body,  though  the  grave  clothes  remained  ;  that,  at  different  times, 
he  appeared  to  them,  both  separately  and  when  assembled ;  that  they 
conversed  with  him  ;  that  he  partook  of  their  food ;  that  they  touched  his 
body ;  that  he  continued  to  make  his  appearance  among  them  for  nearly 
six  weeks,  and  then,  after  many  advices,  finally  led  them  out  as  far  as 
Bethany,  and,  in  the  presence  of  them  all,  ascended  into  the  clouds  of 
heaven.     This  is  the  statement  of  the  disciples. 

The  manner  in  which  the  Jewish  sanhedrim  accounts  for  the  absence 
of  our  Lord's  body  from  the  sepulchre  is,  that  the  Roman  soldiers  having 
slept  on  their  posts,  the  disciples  stole  away  the  corpse.  We  know  of 
no  other  account.  Neither  in  their  earliest  books  nor  traditions  is  there 
any  other  attempt  to  explain  the  alleged  resurrection  of  Jesus.  We 
are  warranted  therefore  in  concluding,  that  the  Pharisees  had  nothing 
but  this  to  oppose  to  the  positive  testimony  of  the  disciples,  who  also 
added,  and  published  it  to  the  world,  that  the  Roman  soldiers  related  to 
the  Pharisees  "  all  the  things  that  were  done,"  the  earthquake,  the 
appearance  of  the  angel,  &c ;  but  that  they  were  bribed  to  say,  "  His 
disciples  came  by  ?iigfil  and  stole  him  away,  while  we  slept" 

On  the  statement  of  the  Pharisees  we  may  remark,  that  though  those 
who  were  not  convinced  by  our  Lord's  former  miracles  were  in  a  state 
of  mind  to  resist  the  impression  of  his  resurrection,  yet,  in  this  attempt  to 
destroy  the  testimony  of  the  apostles,  they  fell  below  their  usual  subtlety 
in  circulating  a  story  which  carried  with  it  its  own  refutation.  This, 
however,  may  be  accounted  for,  from  the  hurry  and  agitation  of  the 
moment,  and  the  necessity  under  which  they  were  laid  to  invent  some- 
thing to  amuse  the  populace,  who  were  not  indisposed  to  charge  them 
with  the  death  of  Jesus.  Of  this  it  is  clear  that  the  Pharisees  were 
apprehensive,  "fearing  the  people,"  on  this  as  on  former  occasions. 
This  appears  from  the  manner  in  which  the  sanhedrim  addressed  the 
apostles,  Acts  v,  28  :  "  Did  we  not  straitly  command  you,  that  ye  should 
not  teach  in  this  name  ?  and  behold  you  have  filled  Jerusalem  with  your 
<Joctrine,  and  intend  to  bring  this  man's  blood  upon  us."  The 
^majority  of  the  people  were  not  enemies  of  Jesus,  though  the  Pharisees 
were  ;  and  it  was  a  mob  of  base  fellows,  and  strangers,  of  which 
Jerusalem  was  full  at  the  passover,  who  had  been  excited  to  clamour  for 
his  death.  The  body  of  the  Jewish  populace  heard  him  gladly ;  great 
numbers  of  them  had  been  deeply  impressed  by  the  raising  of  Lazarus, 
in  the  very  neighbourhood  of  Jerusalem,  and  had  in  consequence  accom- 
panied him  with  public  acclamations,  as  the  Messiah,  into  Jerusalem. 
These  sentiments  of  the  people  of  Jerusalem  toward  our  Lord  were 
transferred  to  the  apostles ;  for  after  Peter  and  John  had  healed  the  man 
at  the  gate  of  the  temple,  and  refused  to  obey  the  council  in  keeping  silen 


FIRST.]  THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES.  153 

as  to  Christ,  when  the  chief  priests  had  "farther  tJireatened  them,  they 
let  them  go,  finding  not  how  they  might  punish  them  because  of  the 
people." 

It  was  in  a  state  of  considerable  agitation,  therefore,  that  this 
absurd  and  self-exposed  rumour  was  hastily  got  up,  and  as  hastily  pub- 
lished. We  may  add,  also,  that  it  was  hastily  abandoned ;  for  it  is  remark- 
able, that  it  is  never  adverted  to  by  the  Pharisees  in  any  of  those  legal 
processes  instituted  at  Jerusalem  against  the  first  preachers  of  Christ  as 
the  risen  Messiah,  within  a  few  days  after  the  alleged  event  itself. 
First,  Peter  and  John  are  brought  before  their  great  council ;  then  the 
whole  body  of  the  apostles  twice ;  on  all  these  occasions  they  affirm  the  fact 
of  the  resurrection,  before  the  very  men  who  had  originated  the  tale  of  the 
stealing  away  of  the  body,  and  in  none  of  these  instances  did  the  chief 
priests  oppose  this  story  to  the  explicit  testimony  of  his  disciples  having 
seen,  felt,  and  conversed  with  Jesus,  after  his  passion.  This  silence 
cannot  be  accounted  for  but  on  the  supposition  that,  in  the  presence  of 
the  apostles  at  least,  they  would  not  hazard  its  exposure.  If  at  any  time 
the  Roman  guards  could  have  been  brought  forward  effectually  to  con- 
front the  apostles,  it  was  when  the  whole  body  of  the  latter  were  in  cus- 
tody, and  before  the  council,  where  indeed  the  great  question  at  issue 
between  the  parties  was,  whether  Jesus  were  risen  from  the  dead  or  not. 
On  the  one  part,  the  apostles  stand  before  the  rulers  affirming  the  fact, 
and  are  ready  to  go  into  the  detail  of  their  testimony  :  the  only  testimony 
which  could  be  opposed  to  this  is  that  of  the  Roman  soldiers,  but  not 
one  of  the  sixty  is  brought  up,  and  they  do  not  even  advert  to  the  rumour 
which  the  rulers  had  proclaimed.  On  the  contrary,  one  of  them, 
Gamaliel,  advises  the  council  to  take  no  farther  proceedings,  but  to  let 
the  matter  go  on,  for  this  reason,  that  if  it  were  of  men  it  would  come 
to  nought,  but  if  of  God,  they  could  not  overthrow  it,  and  would  be  found 
to  fight  against  God  himself.  Now  it  is  plain  that  if  the  Pharisees 
themselves  believed  in  the  story  they  had  put  into  the  mouths  of  the 
Roman  soldiers,  no  doctor  of  the  law,  like  Gamaliel,  would  have  given 
such  advice,  and  equally  impossible  is  it  that  the  council  should  unani- 
mously have  agreed  to  it.  With  honest  proofs  of  an  imposture  in  their 
hands,  they  could  never  thus  have  tamely  surrendered  the  public  to  delu- 
sion and  their  own  characters  to  infamy ;  nor,  if  they  had,  could  they 
have  put  their  non-interference  on  the  ground  assumed  by  Gamaliel. 
The  very  principle  of  his  decision  supposes,  that  both  sides  acknow- 
ledged something  very  extraordinary  which  might- prove  a  work  of 
God  ;  and  that  time  would  make  it  manifest.  It  admitted  in  point  of 
fact,  that  Jesus  migiit  be  risen  again.  The  whole  council,  by 
adopting  Gamaliel's  decision,  admitted  this  possibility,  or  how  could  time 
show  the  whole  work,  built  entirely  upon  this  fact,  to  be  a  work  of  God,  or 
not?   And  thus  Gamaliel,  without  intending  it,  certainly,  has  afforded 


154  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

evidence  in  favour  of  the  resurrection  of  our  Lord  the  more  powerful 
from  its  being  incidental. 

The  absurdity  involved  in  the  only  testimony  ever  brought  against 
the  resurrection  of  our  Lord,  rendered  it  indeed  impossible  to  maintain 
the  story.  That  a  Roman  guard  should  be  found  off  their  watch,  or 
asleep,  a  fault  which  the  military  law  of  that  people  punished  with 
death,  was  most  incredible  ;  that,  if  they  were  asleep,  the  timid  disciples 
of  Christ  should  dare  to  make  the  attempt,  when  the  noise  of  removing 
the  stone  and  bearing  away  the  body  might  awaken  them,  is  very  im- 
probable ;  and,  above  all,  as  it  has  been  often  put,  either  the  soldiers 
were  awake  or  asleep — if  awake,  why  did  they  suffer  a  few  unarmed 
peasants  and  women  to  take  away  the  body  ?  and  if  asleep,  how  came 
they  to  know  that  the  disciples  were  the  persons  ? 

Against  the  resurrection  of  Christ,  we  may  then  with  confidence  say, 
there  is  no  testimony  whatever ;  it  stands,  like  every  other  fact  in  the 
evangelic  history,  entirely  uncontradicted  from  the  earliest  ages  to  the 
present ;  and  though  we  grant  that  it.  does  not  follow,  that,  because  we 
do  not  admit  the  account  given  of  the  absence  of  our  Lord's  body  from 
the  sepulchre  by  the  Jews,  we  must  therefore  admit  that  of  the  apostles, 
yet  the  very  inability  of  those  who  first  objected  to  the  fact  of  the  resur- 
rection to  account  for  the  absence  of  the  body,  which  had  been  entirely 
in  their  own  power,  affords  very  strong  presumptive  evidence  in  favour  of 
the  statement  of  the  disciples.  Under  such  circumstances  the  loss  of  the 
body  became  itself  an  extraordinary  event.  The  tomb  was  carefully 
closed  and  sealed  by  officers  appointed  for  that  purpose,  a  guard  was  set, 
and  yet  the  body  is  missing.  The  story  of  the  Pharisees  does  not  at  all 
account  for  the  fact ;  it  is  too  absurd  to  be  for  a  moment  credited  ;  and 
unless  the  history  of  the  evangelists  be  admitted,  that  singular  fact  remains 
still  unaccounted  for. 

But  in  addition  to  this  presumption,  let  the  circumstances  of  credibility 
in  the  testimony  of  the  disciples  be  collected,  and  the  evidence  becomes 
indubitable. 

The  account  given  by  the  disciples  was  not  even  an  improbable  one  , 
for  allow  the  miracles  wrought  by  Christ  during  his  life,  and  the  resur- 
rection follows  as  a  natural  conclusion ;  for  before  that  event  can  be 
maintained  to  be  in  the  lowest  sense  improbable,  the  whole  history  of  his 
public  life,  in  opposition  not  to  the  evangelists  merely,  but,  as  we  have 
seen,  to  the  testimony  of  Jews  and  heathens  themselves,  must  be  proved 
to  be  a  fable. 

The  manner  in  which  this  testimony  is  given,  is  in  its  favour.  Sr»  far 
from  the  evangelists  having  written  in  concert,  they  give  an  account  of 
the  transaction  so  varied  as  to  make  it  clear  that  they  wrote  independ- 
ently of  each  other ;  and  yet  so  agreeing  in  the  leading  facts,  and  so 
easily  capable  of  reconcilement  in  those  minute  circumstances  in  which 


FIRST.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  155 

some  discrepancy  at  first  sight  appears,  that  their  evidence  in  every  part 
carries  with  it  the  air  of  honesty  and  truth. 

Their  own  account  sufficiently  proves,  that  they  were  incredulous  as 
to  the  fact  when  announced,  and  so  not  disposed  to  be  imposed  upon  by 
an  imagination.  This  indeed  was  impossible  ;  the  appearances  of  Christ 
were  too  numerous,  and  were  continued  for  too  long  a  time, — forty  days. 
They  could  not  mistake,  and  it  is  as  impossible  that  they  should  deceive  ; 
impossible  that  upward  of  five  hundred  persons  to  whom  Christ  appeared, 
should  have  been  persuaded  by  the  artful  few,  that  they  had  seen  and 
conversed  with  Christ,  or  to  agree,  not  only  without  reward,  but  in 
renunciation  of  all  interests  and  in  hazard  of  all  dangers  and  of  death 
itself,  to  continue  to  assert  a  falsehood. 

Nor  did  a  long  period  elapse  before  the  fact  of  the  resurrection  was 
proclaimed ;  nor  was  a  distant  place  chosen  in  which  to  make  the  first 
report  of  it.  These  would  have  been  suspicious  circumstances  ;  but  on 
the  contrary  the  disciples  testify  the  fact  from  the  day  of  the  resurrec- 
tion itself.  One  of  them  in  a  public  speech  at  the  feast  of  pentecost, 
addressed  to  a  mixed  multitude,  affirms  it ;  and  the  same  testimony  is 
given  by  the  whole  college  of  apostles,  before  the  great  council  twice : 
this  too  was  done  at  Jerusalem,  the  scene  of  the  whole  transaction,  and 
in  the  presence  of"  those  most  interested  in  detecting  the  falsehood. 
Their  evidence  was  given,  not  only  before  private  but  public  persons, 
before  magistrates  and  tribunals,  "  before  philosophers  and  rabbies,  be- 
fore  courtiers,  before  lawyers,  before  people  expert  in  examining  and 
cross-examining  witnesses,"  and  yet  what  Christian  ever  impeached  his 
accomplices  ?  or  dHlcovered  this  pretended  imposture  ?  or  was  convicted 
of  prevarication  ?  or  was  even  confronted  with  others  who  could  contra- 
dict him  as  to  this  or  any  other  matter  of  fact  relative  to  his  religion  ? 
To  this  testimony  of  the  apostles  was  added  the  seal  of  miracles,  wrought 
as  publicly,  and  being  as  unequivocal  in  their  nature,  as  open  to  public 
investigation,  and  as  numerous,  as  those  of  their  Lord  himself.  The 
miracle  of  the  gift  of  tongues  was  in  proof  of  the  resurrection  and 
ascension  of  Jesus  Christ ;  and  the  miracles  of  healing  were  wrought  by 
the  apostles  in  their  Master's  name,  and  therefore  were  the  proofs  both 
of  his  resurrection  and  of  their  commission.  Indeed,  of  the  want  of 
supernatural  evidence  the  Jews,  the  ancient  enemies  of  Christianity, 
never  complained.  They  allowed  the  miracles  both  of  Christ  and  his 
apostles ;  but  by  ascribing  them  to  Satan,  and  regarding  them  as  diabo- 
lical delusions  and  wonders  wrought  in  order  to  seduce  them  from  the 
law,  their  admissions  are  at  once  in  proof  of  the  truth  of  the  Gospel 
history,  and  enable  us  to  account  for  their  resistance  to  an  evidence  so 
majestic  and  overwhelming.  (6) 

(6)  The  evidences  of  our  Lord's  resurrection  are  fully  exhibited  in  West  on 


156  THEOLOGICAL     INSTITUTES.  [PART 

CHAPTER  XVI. 

Objections  to  the  Proof  from  Miracles  considered. 

The  first  objection  to  the  conclusiveness  of  the  argument  in  favour 
of  the  Mosaic  and  Christian  systems  which  is  drawn  from  their  miracles, 
is  grounded  upon  facts  and  doctrines  supposed  to  be  found  in  the  Scrip- 
tures themselves. 

It  is  stated,  that  the  Scriptures  assert  miraculous  acts  to  have  been 
performed  in  opposition  to  the  mission  and  to  the  doctrine  of  those  who 
have  professed  themselves  accredited  instruments  of  making  known  re- 
velations  of  the  will  of  God  to  mankind ;  and  that  the  sacred  writers 
frequently  speak  of  such  events  as  possible,  nay  as  certain  future  occur- 
rences, even  when  they  have  not  actually  taken  place.  The  question 
therefore  is,  how  miracles  should  be  conclusive  proofs  of  truth,  when 
(hey  actually  'have  been,  or  may  be  wrought,  in  proof  of  falsehood. 
1  Shall  a  miracle  confirm  the  belief  of  one,  and  not  confirm  the  belief 
of  more  Gods  than  one,  if  wrought  for  that  purpose  ?"  (Bishop  Fleet- 
wood on  Miracles.)  The  instances  usually  adduced  are  the  feats  of  the 
Egyptian  magi  in  opposition  to  Moses,  and  the  raising  of  Samuel  by  the 
witch  of  Endor.  The  presumptions  that  such  works  are  considered 
possible,  are  drawn  from  a  passage  of  Moses  in  the  book  of  Deutero- 
nomy ;  a  prediction  respecting  false  Christs  in  St.  Matthew's  Gospel ; 
and  the  prediction  of  the  man  of  sin,  in  the  writings  of  St.  Paul :  all 
of  which  caution  the  reader  against  being  seduced  from  the  truth,  by 
"  signs  and  wonders"  performed  by  false  teachers. 

With  respect  to  the  miracles,  or  pretended  miracles,  wrought  by  the 
magicians  of  Pharaoh,  some  preliminary  considerations  are  to  be  noted. 

1.  That  whether  the  persons  called  magicians  were  regular  priests, 
or  a  distinct  class  of  men,  they  were  known  to  be  expert  in  producing 
singular  effects  and  apparent  transformations  in  natural  objects,  for  after 
Moses  had  commenced  his  marvellous  operations,  they  were  sent  for  by 
Pharaoh  to  oppose  their  power  and  skill  to  his. 

2.  That  they  succeeded,  or  appeared  to  succeed,  in  three  attempts 
to  imitate  the  works  of  Moses,  and  were  then  controlled,  or  attempted  a 
work  beyond  their  power,  and  were  obliged  to  acknowledge  themselves 
vanquished  by  "  the  finger  of  God."  The  rest  of  the  miracles  wrought 
by  Moses  went  on  without  any  attempt  at  imitation. 

3.  That  these  works  of  whatever  kind  they  might  be,  were  wrought 
to  hold  up  the  idols  of  Egypt  as  equal  in  power  to  Jehovah,  the  God  of 
Moses  and  the  Israelites.     This  is  a  consideration  of  importance,  and 

the  Resurrection,  Sherlock's  Trial  of  the  Witnesses,  and  Dr.  Cook's  Illustration 
of  the  Evidence  of  Christ's  Resurrection. 


FIRST.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  157 

the  fact  is  easily  proved.  If  they  were  mere  jugglers  and  performed 
their  wonders  by  sleight  of  hand,  they  did  not  wish  the  people  to  know 
this,  or  their  influence  over  them  could  not  have  been  maintained. 
They  therefore  used  "  enchantments,"  incongruous  and  strange  cere- 
monies, rites  and  offerings,  which  among  all  superstitious  people  have 
been  supposed  to  have  a  powerful  effect  in  commanding  the  influence 
of  supernatural  beings  in  their  favour  and  subjecting  them  to  their  will. 
We  have  an  instance  of  this  use  of  "  enchantments"  in  the  case  of  Ba- 
laam, who  lived  in  the  same  age ;  and  this  example  goes  very  far,  we 
think,  to  settle  the  sense  in  which  the  magi  used  "  enchantments ;"  for 
though  the  original  word  used  is  different,  yet  its  ideal  meaning  is 
equally  capable  of  being  applied  to  the  rites  of  incantation,  and  in  this 
sense  it  is  confirmed  by  the  whole  story.  (7)  HVhatever*  connection 
therefore  may  be  supposed  to  exist  between  the  "  enchantments"  used 
and  the  works  performed,  or  if  all  connection  be  denied,  this  species  of 
religious  rite  was  performed,  and  the  people  understood^  as  it  was 
intended  they  should  understand,  that  the  wonders  which  the  magi  per- 
formed were  done  under  the  influence  of  their  deities.  The  object  of 
Pharaoh  and  the  magicians  was  to  show,  that  their  gods  were  as  power- 
ful as  the  God  who  had  commissioned  Moses,  ^and  that  they  could  pro- 
tect them  from  his  displeasure,  though  they  should  refuse  at  the  command 
of  his  commissioned  servant  to  let  his  people  go. 

But  whatever  pretence  there  was  of  supernatural  assistance,  it  is  con- 
tended by  several  writers  of  great  and  deserved  authority,  that  no 
miracles  were  wrought  at  all  on  these  occasions  ;  that,  by  dexterity  and 
previous  preparation,  serpents  were  substituted  by  the  magicians  for 
rods ;  that  a  colouring  matter  was  infused  into  a  portion  of  water ;  and 
that  as  frogs,  through  the  previous  miracle  of  Moses,  every  where 
abounded  in  the  land  of  Egypt,  a  sufficient  number  might  be  easily  pro- 
cured to  cover  some  given  space  ;  and  they  farther  argue,  that  when 
the  miracles  of  Moses  became  such  as  to  defy  the  possibility  of  the 
most  distant  imitation,  at  that  point  the  simulations  of  the  magi  ceased. 

The  obvious  objection  to  this  is,  that  "  Moses  describss  the  works  of 
the  magicians  in  the  very  same  language  as  he  does  his  own,  and  there- 
fore there  is  reason  to  conclude  that  they  were  equally  miraculous." 

(7)  "  They  also  did  in  like  manner  with  their  enchantments.  The  word  o^anS, 
lahatim,  comes  from  en1?,  lahat,  to  turn,  to  set  on  fire  ;  and  probably  signifies 
such  incantations  as  required  lustral  fires,  sacrifices,  fumigations,  burning  of  in- 
cense, aromatic,  and  odoriferous  drugs,  <J-c,  as  the  means  of  evoking  departed 
spirits,  or  assistant  demons,  by  whose  ministry,  it  is  probable,  the  magicians  in 
question  wrought  some  of  their  deceptive  miracles :  for  as  the  term  miracle  pro- 
perly signifies  something  which  exceeds  the  power  of  nature  or  art  to  produce, 
(see  verse  9 ;)  hence  there  could  be  no  miracle  in  this  case,  but  those  wrought 
through  the  power  of  God,  by  the  ministry  of  Moses  and  Aaron."  (Dr.  Adah 
Clarke  in  loc.) 


158  THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES.  [PART 

To  this  it  is  replied,  that  nothing  is  more  common  than  to  speak  of  pro. 
fessed  jugglers  as  doing  what  they  pretend  or  appear  to  do,  and  that 
this  language  never  misleads.  But  it  is  also  stated,  and  the  observation 
is  of  great  weight,  that  the  word  used  by  Moses  is  one  of  great  latitude 
— "  they  did  so,"  that  is,  in  like  manner,  importing  that  they  attempted 
some  imitation  of  Moses ;  because  it  is  used  when  they  failed  in  their 
attempt — "  they  did  so  to  bring  forth  lice  ;  but  they  could  not."  Farther, 
Mr.  Farmer,  Dr.  Hales,  and  others,  contend,  that  the  root  of  the  word 
translated  "  enchantments"  fitly  expresses  any  "  secret  artifices  or  me- 
thods of  deception,  whereby  false  appearances  are  imposed  upon  the 
spectators."  For  a  farther  explanation  and  defence  of  this  hypothesis, 
an  extract  from  Farmer's  Dissertation  on  Miracles  is  given,  at  the  end 
of  the  chapter.  (8)  * 

Much  as  these  observations  deserve  attention,  it  may  be  very  much 
doubted,  whether  mere  manual  dexterity  and  sleight  of  hand  can  suffi- 
ciently account  for  the  effects  actually  produced,  if  only  human  agents 
were  engaged ;  and  it  does  not  appear  impracticable  to  meet  any  diffi- 
culty which  may  arise  out  of  an  admission  of  supernatural  evil  agency 
in  the  imitation  of  the  three  first  wonders  performed  by  Moses. 

It  ought  however  in  the  first  place  to  be  previously  stated,  that  the 
history  before  us  is  not  in  fairness  to  be  judged  of  as  an  insulated  state- 
ment, independent  of  the  principles  and  doctrines  of  the  revelation  in 
which  it  is  found.  With  that  revelation  it  is  bound  up,  and  by  the  light 
»>f  its  doctrine  it  is  to  be  judged.  No  infidel,  who  would  find  in  Scrip- 
ture an  argument  against  Scripture,  has  the  right  to  consider  any  pas- 
sage separately,  or  to  apply  to  it  the  rule  of  his  own  theory  on  religious 
subjects,  unless  he  has  first,  by  fair  and  honest  argument,  disposed  of 
the  evidences  of  the  Scriptures  themselves.  He  must  disprove  the 
authenticity  of  the  sacred  record,  and  the  truth  of  the  facts  contained  in 
it, — he  must  rid  himself  of  every  proof  of  the  Divine  mission  of  Moses, 
and  of  the  evidence  of  his  miracles,  before  he  is  entitled  to  this  right ; 
and  if  he  is  inadequate  to  this  task,  he  can  only  consider  the  case  as  a 
difficulty,  standing  on  the  admission  of  the  Scriptures  themselves,  and  to 
be  explained,  as  far  as  possible,  on  the  principles  of  that  general  system 
of  religion  which  the  Scriptures  themselves  supply.  In  this  nothing 
more  is  asked,  than  argumentative  fairness.  The  same  rule  is  still  more 
obligatory  upon  those  interpreters  who  profess  to  believe  in  the  Divine 
authority  of  the  sacred  records ;  for  by  the  aid  of  their  general  prin- 
ciples and  unequivocal  doctrines,  every  difficulty  which  they  profess  to 
extract  from  them,  is  surely  to  be  examined  in  order  to  ascertain  its  real 
character.  What,  however,  is  the  real  difficulty  in  the  present  case, 
supposing  it  to  be  allowed  that  the  magicians  performed  works  superior 
to  the  power  of  any  mere  human  agent,  and  therefore  supernatural  ? 
(8)  See  note  A  at  the  end  of  the  chapter. 


FIRST.]  THEOLOGICAL   INSTITUTES.  159 

This  it  is  the  more  necessary  to  settle,  as  the  difficulty  supposed  to  arise 
out  of  this  admission  has  been  exaggerated. 

It  seems  generally  to  have  been  supposed,  that  these  counter  per- 
formances were  wrought  to  contradict  the  Divine  mission  of  Moses,  and 
that  by  allowing  them  to  be  supernatural,  we  are  brought  into  the  diffi- 
culty of  supposing,  that  God  may  authenticate  the  mission  of  his  servants 
by  miracles,  and  that  miracles  may  be  wrought  also  to  contradict  this 
attestation,  thus  leaving  us  in  a  state  of  uncertainty.     This  view  is  not 
however  at  all  countenanced  by  the  history.     No  intimation  is  given 
that  the  magicians  performed  their  wonders  to  prove  that  there  was  no 
such  God  as  Jehovah,  or  that  Moses  was  not  commissioned  by  him. 
For  as  they  did  not  deny  the  works  of  Moses  to  be  really  performed, 
they  could  no  more  deny  that  he  did  them  by  the  power  of  his  God, 
than  they  would  deny  that  they  themselves  performed  their  exploits  by 
the  assistance  of  their  gods, — a  point  which  they  doubtless  wished  to 
impress  upon  Pharaoh  and  the  people,  and  for  which  both  were  prepared 
by  their  previous  belief  in  their  idols,  and  in  the  effect  of  incantations. 
For  to  suppose  that  Pharaoh  sent  for  men  to  play  mere  juggling  tricks, 
knowing  them  to  be  mere  jugglers,  seems  too  absurd  to  be  for  a  moment 
admitted,  except  indeed,  as  some  have  assumed,  that  he  thought  the 
works  of  Moses  to  be  sleight-of-hand  deceptions,  which  he  might  ex- 
pose by  the  imitations  of  his  own  jugglers.     But  nothing  of  this  is  even 
hinted  at  in  the  history,  and  at  least  the  second  work  of  Moses  was  such 
as  entirely  to  preclude  the  idea — the  water  became  blood  throvghout  the 
whole  land  of  Egypt.     It  was  not  intended  by  these  works  of  the  Egyp- 
tian magi,  to  oppose  the  existence  of  Jehovah,  for  there  was  nothing  in 
polytheism  which  required  it  to  be  denied,  that  every  people  had  their 
own  local  divinities, — nothing  indeed  which  required  its  votaries  to  dis- 
allow the  existence  of  even  a  Supreme  Deity,  the  "  Father  of  gods  and 
men  ;"  and  that  Moses  was  commissioned  by  this  Jehovah,  "  the  God 
of  the  Hebrews,"  to  command  Pharaoh  to  let  his  people  go,  was  in  point 
of  fact  acknowledged,  rather  than  denied,  by  allowing  his  works,  and 
attempting  to  imitate  them.     The  argument  upon  their  own  principles 
wa»  certainly  as  strong  for  Moses,  as  for  the  Egyptian  priests.     If  their 
extraordinary  works  proved  them  the  servants  of  their  gods,  the  works 
of  Moses  proved  him  to  be  the  servant  of  his  God. 

Thus  in  thi3  series  of  singular  transactions  was  there  no  evidence 
from  counter  miracles,  even  should  it  be  allowed  that  real  miracles  were 
wrought,  to  counteract  or  nullify  the  mission  of  Moses,  or  to  deny  the 
existence  or  even  to  question  any  of  the  attributes  of  the  true  Jehovah. 
All  that  can  be  said  is,  that  singular  works,  which  were  intended  to 
pass  for  miraculous  ones,  were  wrought,  not  to  disprove  any  thing 
which  Moses  advanced,  but  to  prove  that  the  Egyptian  deities  had 
power  equal  to  the  God  of  the  Jews  ;  and  in  which  contest  their  votaries 


160  THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES.  [PART 

ultimately  fuiled — that  pretension  being  abundantly  refuted  by  the  tran- 
scendent nature  and  number  of  the  works  of  Moses  ;  and  by  their  being 
"plagues"  from  which  the  objects  of  their  idolatry  could  not  deliver 
them,  and  which,  indeed,  as  the  learned  Bryant  has  shown,  were 
intended  expressly  to  humble  idolatry  itself,  and  put  it  to  open  and  bit- 
ter shame. 

If  in  this  instance  we  see  nothing  to  contravene  the  evidence  of 
miracles,  as  attestations  of  the  Divine  commission  of  Moses,  so  in  no 
other  case  recorded  in  Scripture.  The  raising  of  the  spirit  of  Samuel 
by  the  witch  of  Endor,  is  indeed  the  only  instance  of  any  thing  ap- 
proaching to  miraculous  agency  ascribed  to  an  evil  spirit,  unless  we 
add  the  power  exercised  by  Satan  over  Job,  and  his  bearing  our  Lord 
through  the  air,  and  placing  him  upon  an  exceeding  high  mountain.  But 
whether  these  events  were  properly  speaking  miraculous,  may  be  more 
than  doubted  ;  and  if  they  were,  neither  they,  nor  the  raising  of  Samuel 
profess  to  give  any  evidence  in  opposition  to  the  mission  of  any  servant 
of  God.  or  to  the  doctrines  taught  by  him.  On  the  contrary,  so  far  are 
the  Scriptures  from  affording  any  examples  of  miracles,  either  real  or 
simulated,  wrought  in  direct  opposition  to  the  mission  and  theological 
doctrine  of  the  inspired  messengers  of  God  in  any  age,  that  in  cases 
where  the  authority  of  the  messenger  was  fairly  brought  into  question, 
the  examples  are  of  a  quite  different  kind.  Elijah  brought  the  matter 
to  issue,  whether  Jehovah  or  Baal  were  God ;  and  while  the  priests  of 
Baal  heard  neither  "  voice  nor  sound"  in  return  to  all  their  prayers,  the 
God  of  Israel  answered  his  own  prophet  by  fire,  and  by  that  ratified  his 
servant's  commission  and  his  own  Divinity  before  all  Israel.  The 
devils  in  our  Lord's  days  confessed  him  to  be  the  Son  of  the  most  high 
God.  The  damsel  possessed  with  a  spirit  of  divination  at  Thyatira, 
gave  testimony  to  the  mission  of  the  Apostle  Paul  and  his  companions. 
We  read  of  no  particular  acts  performed  by  Elymas  the  sorcerer ;  but, 
whatever  he  could  perform,  when  he  attempted  to  turn  away  Sergius 
Paulus  from  the  faith  he  was  struck  blind.  And  thus  we  find  that  Scrip- 
ture does  no  where  represent  miracles  to  have  been  actually  wrought  m 
contradiction  of  the  authority  of  any  whom  God  had  commissioned  to 
teach  his  will  to  mankind. 

But  that  the  Scriptures  assume  this  as  possible,  is  argued  from  Deut. 
xiii,  1,  &c, — where  the  people  are  commanded  not  to  follow  a  prophet 
or  dreamer  of  dreams,  who  would  entice  them  into  idolatry,  though  he 
should  give  them  "a  sign  or  wonder,  and  the  sign  or  wonder  come  to 
pass."  Here,  however,  it  appears,  that  not  a  miracle,  but  a  prophecy 
of  some  wonderful  event  is  spoken  of:  for  this  sign  or  wonder  was  to 
come  to  pass.  Nor  can  the  prediction  be  considered  as  more  than 
some  shrewd  and  accidental  guess,  either  from  himself,  or  by  the  assist. 
ance  of  some  evil  supernatural  agency,  (a  subject  we  shall  just  now 


FIRST.1 


THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  161 


consider,)  but  in  fact,  falling  short,  though  in  some  respects  wonderful, 
of  a  true  prediction ;  because  in  the  eighteenth  chapter  of  this  same 
book,  the  fulfilment  of  the  words  of  a  prophet  is  made  the  conclusive 
proof  of  his  Divine  commission,  nor  can  we  suppose  the  same  writer 
within  the  distance  of  a  few  sentences  to  contradict  himself. 

In  Matthew  xxiv,  24,  it  is  predicted  that  false  Christs  and  false  pro- 
phets shall  arise  and  show  "great  signs  and  wonders,"  calculated  to  de- 
ceive men,  though  not  "  the  elect"  And  in  2  Thess.  ii,  8  and  9,  the 
coming  of  the  man  of  sin  is  said  to  be  "  after  the  working  of  Satan  with 
all  power,  and  signs,  and  lying  wonders."  The  latter  prediction  refers  un- 
questionably to  the  papacy,  and  to  works  wrought  to  lead  men  from  the 
true  interpretation  of  the  Gospel,  though  not  to  annul  in  the  least  the 
Divine  authority  of  Christ  and  his  apostles  ;  the  former  supposes  works 
which,  as  being  wrought  by  false  Christs,  are  opposed  to  the  commission 
of  our  Lord,  and  is  indeed  the  only  instance  in  which  a  direct  contest 
between  the  miracles  which  attest  the  authority  of  a  Divine  messenger, 
and  "  great  signs  and  wonders"  wrought  to  attest  an  opposing  and  con- 
tradictory authority,  is  spoken  of.  What  these  "  signs  and  wonder^' 
may  be,  it  is  therefore  necessary  to  ascertain. 

In  the  Thessalonians  they  are  ascribed  to  the  "  working  of  Satan,** 
and  in  order  to  bring  the  general  principles  of  the  revelation  of  the 
Scriptures  to  bear  upon  these,  its  more  obscure  and  difficult  parts,  a 
rule  to  which  we  are  in  fairness  bound,  it  must  be  observed, 

1.  That  the  introduction  of  sin  into  the  world  is  ascribed  to  the 
malice  and  seductive  cunning  of  a  powerful  evil  spirit,  the  head  and 
leader  of  innumerable  others.  2.  That  when  a  Redeemer  was  pro- 
mised to  man,  that  promise,  in  its  very  first  annunciation,  indicated  a 
long  and  arduous  struggle  between  him  and  these  evil  supernatural 
agents.  3.  That  it  is  the  fact,  that  a  powerful  contest  has  been  main- 
tained in  the  world  ever  since,  between  truth  and  error,  idolatry,  super- 
stition, and  will  worship,  and  the  pure  and  authorized  worship  of  the 
true  God.  4.  That  the  Scriptures  uniformly  represent  the  Redeemer 
and  Restorer  at  the  head  of  one  party  of  men  in  the  struggle,  and 
Satan  at  the  head  of  the  other ;  each  making  use  of  men  as  their 
instruments,  though  consistently  with  their  general  free  agency.  5. 
That  almighty  God  carries  on  his  purposes  to  win  man  back  to  obe- 
dience to  him,  by  the  exhibition  of  truth,  with  its  proper  evidences  ;  by 
commands,  promises,  threats,  chastisements,  and  final  punishments ; 
and  that  Satan  opposes  this  design  by  exhibitions  of  error,  and  false 
religion,  gratifying  to  the  corrupt  passions  and  appetites  of  men  ;  and 
especially  seeks  to  influence  powerful  agents  among  men  to  seduce 
others  by  their  example ;  and  to  destroy  the  truth  by  persecution  and 
force.  6.  That  the  false  religions  of  the  heathen,  as  well  as  the  cor- 
ruptions of  Christianity,  took  place  under  this  diabolical  influence ;  and 

Vol.  I.  11 


162  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  |PA.RT 

that  the  idols  of  the  heathen  were  not  only  the  devices  of  devils,  but 
often  devils  themselves,  (9)  made  the  objects  of  the  worship  of  men, 
either  for  their  wickedness  or  their  supposed  power  to  hurt.  (1) 

Now  as  the  objection  which  we  are  considering  is  professedly  taken 
from  Scripture,  its  doctrine  on  this  subject  must  be  explained  by  itself, 
and  for  this  reason  the  above  particulars  have  been  introduced  ;  but  the 
inquiry  must  go  farther.  These  evil  spirits  are  in  a  state  of  hostility 
to  the  truth,  and  oppose  it  by  endeavouring  to  seduce  men  to  erroneous 
opinions,  and  a  corrupt  worship.  All  their  power  may  therefore  be 
expected  to  be  put  forth  in  accomplishment  of  their  designs;  but  to 
what  does  their  power  extend  ?  This  is  an  important  question,  and  the 
Scriptures  afford  us  no  small  degree  of  assistance  in  deciding  it. 

1.  They  can  perform  no  work  of  creation  ;  for  this  throughout  Scrip- 
ture is  constantly  attributed  to  God,  and  is  appealed  to  by  him  as  the 
proof  of  his  own  Divinity  in  opposition  to  idols,  and  to  all  beings  what- 
ever — "  To  whom  will  ye  liken  me,  or  shall  I  be  equal,  saith  the  Holy 
One  ?  Lift  up  your  eyes  on  high,  and  behold  who  hath  created  these 
things ."  This  claim  must  of  necessity  cut  off  from  every  other  being 
the  power  of  creating  in  any  degree,  thai  is,  of  making  any  thing  out  of 
nothing ;  for  a  being  possessing  the  power  to  create  an  atom  out  of 
nothing,  could  not  want  the  ability  of  making  a  world.  Nay,  creation, 
in  its  lower  sense,  is  in  this  passage  denied  to  any  but  God  ;  that  is,  the 
forming  goodly  and  perfect  natural  objec:s,  such  as  the  heavens  and  the 
earth  are  replenished  with,  from  a  pre-existent  matter,  as  he  formed 
all  things  from  matter  unorganized  and  chaotic.  No  "  sign,"  therefore, 
no  "  wonder"  which  implies  creation,  is  possible  to  finite  beings  ;  and 
whatever  power  any  of  them  may  have  over  matter,  it  cannot  extend  to 
any  act  of  creation. 

2.  Life  and  death  are  out  of  the  power  of  evil  spirits.  The  domi- 
nion of  these  is  so  exclusively  claimed  by  God  himself  in  many  passages 
of  Scripture  which  are  familiar,  that  they  need  not  be  cited, — "  Unto  God 
the  Lord  belong  the  issues  from  death" — "J  kill,  and  I  make  alive 
again*"     No  "signs  or  wonders," 'therefore,    which    imply  dominion 

(9)  Some  of  the  demons  worshipped,  by  heathens  had  a  benevolent  reputation, 
and  these  were  no  doubt  suggested  by  the  tradition  of  good  angels ;  others  were 
malignant.,  and  were  none  other  than  the  evil  angels,  devils,  handed  down  by 
the  same  tradition.  Thus  Plutarch  says,  "  It  has  been  a  very  ancient  opinion, 
that  there  are  malevolent  demons,  who  envy  good  men,  and  oppose  them  in  their 
actions,"  &c. 

(1)  The  pission  of  Satan  to  be  worshipped  appears  strongly  marked  in  our 
Lord's  temptation :  "  All  these  wi'l  I  give  thee,  if  thou  wilt  fall  down  and  wor- 
ship me."  In  all  ages  evil  and  sanguinary  beings  have  been  deified.  It  was  so 
in  the  time  of  Moses,  and  remains  so  to  this  day  in  India  and  Africa,  where 
devil  worship  is  openly  professed.  In  Ceylon  nothing  is  more  common  ;  and  in 
many  parts  of  Africa  every  village  has  its  devil  house. 


riRST.]  THEOLOGICAL.  INSTITUTES.  163 

over  these, — the  power  to  produce  a  living  being,  or  to  give  life  to  the 
dead, — are  within  the  power  of  evil  spirits;  these  are  works  of  God. 

3.  The  knowledge  of  future  events,  especially  of  those  which  depend 
on  free  or  contingent  causes,  is  not  attainable  by  evil  spirits.  This  is 
the  property  of  God,  who  founds  upon  it  the  proof  of  his  Deity, 
and  therefore  excludes  it  from  all  others:  "Show  the  things  that  are  to 
come  hereafter,  that  we  may  know  that  ye  are  gods,"  Isa.  xl,  25,  26  ; 
xli,  28.  They  cannot  therefore  utter  a  prediction  in  the  strict  and 
proper  sense  ;  though  from  their  great  knowledge  of  human  affairs,  and 
their  long  habits  of  observation,  their  conjectures  may  be  surprising,  and 
often  accomplished,  and  so  if  uttered  by  any  of  their  servants  may  have 
in  some  cases  the  appearance  of  prophecies. 

4.  They  do  not  know  certainly  the  thoughts  and  characters  of  men. 
*  That,"  as  St.  Augustine  observes,  "  they  have  a  great  facility  in  dis- 
covering what  is  in  the  minds  of  men  by  the  least  external  sign  they 
give  of  it,  and  such  as  the  most  sagacious  men  cannot  perceive,"  and 
that  ihey  may  have  other  means  of  access  too  to  the  mind  beside  these 
external  signs ;  and  that  a  constant  observation  of  human  character,  to 
which  they  are  led  by  their  favourite  work  of  temptation,  gives  them 
great  insight  into  the  character  and  tempers  and  weakness  of  indivi- 
duals, may  be  granted ;  but  that  the  absolute,  immediate,  infallible 
knowledge  of  the  thoughts  and  character  belongs  alone  to  God,  is 
clearly  the  doctrine  of  Scripture :  it  is  the  Lord  "  wlio  scarcheth  the 
heart,"  and  "knouelh  what  is  in  man;"  and  in  Jeremiah  vii,  9,  10,  the 
knowledge  of  the  heart  is  attributed  exclusively  to  God  alone. 

Let  all  these  things  then  .be  considered,  and  we  shall  be  able  to 
ascertain,  at  least  in  part,  the  limits  within  which  this  evil  agency  is 
able  to  operate  in  opposing  the  truth,  and  in  giving  currency  to  false- 
hood ;  at  least  we  shall  be  able  to  show,  that  the  Scriptures  assign  no 
power  to  this  "working  of  Satan"  to  oppose  the  truth  by  such  "signs 
and  wonders"  as  many  have  supposed.  In  no  inslance  can  evil  spirits 
oppose  the  truth,  we  do  not  say  by  equal,  or  nearly  equal  miracles  and 
prophecies,  but  by  real  ones — of  both,  their  works  are  but  simulations. 
We  take  the  case  of  miracles.  A.  creature  cannot  create ;  this  is  the 
doctrine  of  Scripture,  and  it  will  serve  to  explain  the  wonders  of  the 
Egyptian  magi.  They  were,  we  think,  very  far  above  the  sleight  of  hand 
of  mere  men  unassisted ;  and  we  have  seen,  that  as  idolatry  is  diabolic, 
and  even  is  the  worship  of  devils  themselves,  and  the  instrument  of  their 
oppositicn  to  God,  the  Scriptures  suppose  them  to  be  exceedingly  active 
in  its  support.  It  is  perfectly  accordant  with  this  principle,  therefore, 
to  conclude,  that  Pharaoh's  priests  had  as  much  of  the  assistance  of  the 
demons  whose  ministers  they  were,  as  they  were  able  to  exert.  But 
then  the  great  principles  we  have  just  doduced  from  Scripture,  oblige  us 
to  limit  this  power.     It  was  not  a  power  of  working  real  miracles,  but 


104  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  TPART 

of  simulating  them  iu  order  to  uphold  the  credit  of  idolatry.  Now  the 
three  miracles  of  Moses  which  were  simulated,  all  involved  a  creating 
energy.  A  serpent  was  created  out  of  the  matter  of  the  rod  ;  the  frogs, 
from  their  immense  multitude,  appear  also  to  have  been  created ;  and 
blood  was  formed  out  of  the  matter  of  water.  But  in  the  imitations  of 
the  magi,  there  was  no  creation :  we  are  forbidden  by  the  doctrine  of 
Scripture  to  allow  this,  and  therefore  there  must  have  been  deception 
and  the  substitution  of  one  thing  for  another ;  which,  though  performed 
in  a  manner  apparently  much  above  human  adroitness,  might  be  very 
much  within  the  power  of  a  number  of  invisible  and  active  spirits. 
Serpents,  in  a  country  where  they  abound,  might  be  substituted  for  rods  ; 
frogs,  which,  after  they  had  been  brought  upon  the  land  by  Moses,  were 
numerous  enough,  might  be  suddenly  thrown  upon  a  cleared  place  ;  and 
the  water,  which  could  only  be  obtained  by  digging,  for  the  plague  of 
Moses  was  upon  all  the  streams  and  reservoirs,  and  the  quantity  being 
in  consequence  very  limited,  might  by  their  invisible  activity  be  easily 
mixed  with  blood  or  a  colouring  matter.  In  all  this  there  was  something 
of  the  imposture  of  the  priests,  and  much  of  the  assistance  of  Satan ; 
but  in  the  strict  sense  no  miracle  was  wrought  by  either,  while  the 
■vorks  of  Moses  were,  from  their  extent,  unequivocally  miraculous. 

For  the  reasons  we  have  given,  no  apparent  miracles  wrought  in 
support  of  falsehood,  can  for  a  moment  become  rivals  of  the  great 
miracles  by  which  the  revelations  of  the  Scripture  are  attested.  For 
instance,  nothing  like  that  of  feeding  several  thousands  of  people  with  a 
few  loaves  and  fishes  can  occur,  for  that  supposes  creation  of  the  matter 
and  the  form  of  bread  and  fish ;  no  giving  life  to  the  dead,  for  the 
"  issues  from  death"  belong  exclusively  to  God.  Accordingly  we  find 
in  the  "  signs  and  wonders"  wrought  by  the  false  prophets  and  Christs 
predicted  in  Matthew,  whether  we  suppose  them  mere  impostors,  or  the 
immediate  agents  of  Satan  also,  nothing  of  this  decisive  kind  to  attest 
their  mission.  Theudas  promised  to  divide  Jordan,  and  seduced  many 
to  follow  him ;  but  he  was  killed  by  the  Roman  troops  before  he  could 
perform  his  miracle.  Another  promised  that  the  walls  of  Jerusalem 
should  fall  down  ;  but  his  followers  were  also  put  to  the  sword  by  Felix. 
The  false  Christ,  Barchocheba,  raised  a  large  party ;  but  no  miracles 
of  his  are  recorded.  Another  arose,  A.  D.434,  and  pretended  to  divide 
the  sea ;  but  hid  himself  after  many  of  his  besotted  followers  had  plunged 
into  it,  in  faith  that  it  would  retire  from  them,  and  were  drowned. 
Many  other  false  Christs  appeared  at  different  times;  but  the  most  noted 
was  Sabbatai  Sevi,  in  1666.  The  delusion  of  the  Jews  with  respect 
to  him  was  very  great.  Many  of  his  followers  were  strangely  affected, 
prophesied  of  his  greatness,  and  appeared  by  their  contortions  to  be 
under  some  supernatural  influence ;  but  the  grand  seignior  having 
apprehended  Sabbatai,  gave  him  the  choice  of  proving  his  Messiahship, 


FIRST.]  THEOIiOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  165 

by  suffering  a  body  of  archers  to  shoot  at  him  ;  after  which,  if  he  was 
not  wounded,  he  would  acknowledge  him  to  be  the  Messias ;  or,  if  he 
declined  this,  that  he  should  be  impaled,  or  turn  Turk.  He  chose  the 
latter,  and  the  delusion  was  dissipated. 

Now  whatever  "  signs  or  wonders"  may  be  wrought  by  any  of  these, 
it  is  clear  from  the  absence  of  all  record  of  any  unequivocal  miracle, 
that  they  were  either  illusions  or  impostures. 

The  same  course  of  remark  applies  to  prophecy.  To  know  the 
future  certainly,  is  the  special  prerogative  of  God.  The  false  prophet 
anticipated  by  Moses  in  Deuteronomy,  who  was  to  utter  wonderful  pre- 
dictions which  should  "  come  to  pass,"  is  not  therefore  to  be  supposed 
to  utter  predictions  strictly  and  truly,  as  founded  upon  an  absolute  know- 
ledge of  the  future.  A  shrewd  man  may  guess  happily  in  some 
instances,  and  his  conjectures  when  accomplished  may  appear  to  be  "  a 
sign  and  a  wonder,"  to  a  people  willing  to  be  deceived,  because  loving 
the  idolatry  to  which  he  would  lead  them.  Still  farther,  the  Scripture 
doctrine  does  not  discountenance  the  idea  of  an  evil  supernatural  agency 
"  working"  with  him  ;  and  then  the  superior  sagacity  of  evil  spirits 
may  give  to  his  conjectures,  founded  upon  their  own  natural  foresight 
of  probabilities,  a  more  decided  air  of  prophecy,  and  thus  aid  the  wicked 
purpose  of  seducing  men  from  God's  worship.  Real  and  unequivocal 
prophecy  is  however  impossible  to  them,  and  indeed  we  have  no 
instance  of  any  approach  to  it  among  the  false  prophets  recorded  in  the 
Jewish  history.  The  heathen  oracles  may  afford  us  also  a  comment  on 
this.  They  were  exceedingly  numerous ;  many  of  them  were  highly 
celebrated ;  all  professed  to  reveal  the  future ;  some  wonderful  stories 
are  recorded  of  them  ;  and  it  is  difficult  to  refer  the  whole  to  the  impos- 
ture of  priests,  though  much  of  that  was  ultimately  detected.  That 
they  kept  their  credit  for  two  thousand  years,  and  were  silenced  by  the 
spread  of  the  Gospel,  and  that,  almost  entirely,  before  the  time  of  the 
establishment  of  Christianity  by  Constantine,  as  acknowledged  by  hea- 
then authors  themselves — that  they  were  in  many  instances  silenced  by 
individual  Christians,  is  openly  declared  in  the  apologies  of  the  Chris- 
tian fathers,  so  that  the  Pythonic  inspiration  could  never  be  renewed — 
these  are  all  strong  presumptions  at  least,  that,  in  this  mockery  of  the 
Oracle  of  Zion,  this  counterfeit  of  the  standing  evidence  given  by  pro- 
phecy to  truth,  there  was  much  of  diabolical  agency,  though  greatly 
mingled  with  imposture.  (2)  Nevertheless,  the  ambiguity  and  obscurity 
by  which  the  oracles  sported  with  the  credulity  of  the  heathen,  and 
miserably  seduced  them,  often  to  the  most  diabolical  wickednesses,  and 
yet,  in  many  cases,  whatever  might  happen,  preserved  the  appearance 

(2)  This  subject  is  acutely  and  learnedly  discussed  in  "  An  Answer  to  M.  de 
Fontenelle's  History  of  Oracles,  translated  from  the  French  by  a  Priest  of  the 
Church  of  England." 


V 


166  THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES.  [PARI 

of  having  told  the  truth,  sufficiently  proved  the  want  of  a  certain  and 
clear  knowledge  of  the  future  ;  and,  upon  the  showing  of  their  own 
writers,  nothing  was  ever  uttered  by  an  oracle  which,  considered  as 
prophecy,  can  be  for  a  moment  put  in  comparison  with  the  least  remark 
able  of  those  Scripture  predictions  which  are  brought  forward  in  proot 
.of  the  truth  of  the  Scriptures.  When  they  are  brought  into  compan 
son,  the  most  celebrated  of  them  appear  contemptible.  (3)  We  may 
then  very  confidently  conclude,  that  as  Scripture  no  where  represents 
any  "  signs  or  wonders"  as  actually  wrought  to  contradict  the  evidence 
of  the  Divine  commission  of  Moses,  of  Christ  and  his  apostles ;  so  in 
those  passages  in  which  it  supposes  that  they  may  occur,  and  predicts 
that  they  will  be  wrought  in  favour  of  falsehood,  and,  in  the  case  of  the 
false  Christs,  in  opposition  to  the  true  Messiah,  they  do  not  give  any 
countenance  to  the  notion,  that  either  real  miracles  can  be  wrought,  or 
real  predictions  uttered,  even  by  the  permission  of  God,  in  favour  of 
falsehood :  for  no  permission,  properly  speaking,  can  be  given  to  any 
being  to  do  what  he  has  not  the  natural  power  to  effect ;  and  permis- 
sion in  this  case,  to  mean  any  thing,  must  imply  that  God  himself 
wrought  the  miracles,  and  gave  the  predictions,  through  the  instrumen- 
tality of  a  creature  it  is  true,  but  in  fact  that  he  employed  his  Divine 
power  in  opposition  to  his  own  truth, — a  dishonourable  thought  which 
cannot  certainly  be  maintained.  f( His  permission  may  however  extend 
to  a  license  to  evil  men,  and  evil  spirits  too,  to  employ,  against  the  truth 
and  for  the  seduction  of  men,  whatever  natural  power  they  possess) 
This  is  perfectly  consistent  with  the  general  doctrine  of  Scripture  ;  but 
this  permission  is  granted  under  rule  and  limit.  Thus  the  history  of  Job 
is  highly  important,  as  it  shows  that  evil  spirits  cannot  employ  their 
power  against  a  good  man  without  express  permission.  An  event  in  the 
history  of  Jesus  teaches  also  that  they  cannot  destroy  even  an  animal 
of  the  vilest  kind,  a  swine,  without  the  same  license.  Moral  ends  too 
were  to  be  answered  in  both  cases — teaching  the  doctrine  of  Providence 
to  future  generations  by  the  example  of  Job ;  and  punishing  the  Ga- 
darenes  in  their  property  for  their  violation  of  the  law  through  covet- 
ousness.  So  entirely  are  these  invisible  opposers  of  the  truth  and  plans 
of  Christ  under  control ;  and  as  moral  ends  are  so  explicitly  marked  in 
these  instances,  they  may  be  inferred  as  to  every  other,  where  permis- 
sion to  work  evil  or  injury  is  granted.  In  the  cases  indeed  before  us, 
such  moral  purposes  do  not  entirely  rest  upon  inference ;  but  are  made 
evident  from  the  history.  The  agency  of  Satan  was  permitted  in  sup- 
port of  idolatry  in  Egypt,  only  to  make  the  triumph  of  the  true  God 
over  idols  more  illustrious,  and  to  justify  his  severe  judgments  upon  the 
Egyptians.     The  false  prophets  anticipated  in  Deuteronomy  were  per- 

(3)  See  note  B  at  the  end  of  the  chapter. 


FIRST.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  167 

mitted,  as  it  is  stated,  in  order  "  to  prove  the  people."    A  new  circum- 
stance of  trial  was  introduced,  which  would  lead  them  to  compare  the 
pretended  predictions  of  the  false  prophet  with  the  illustrious  and  welU 
sustained  series  of  splendid  miracles  by  which  the  Jewish  economy  had 
been  established, — a  comparison  which  could  not  fail  to  confirm  rational 
and  virtuous  men  in  the  truth,  and  to  render  more  inexcusable  those 
light  and  vain  persons  who  might  be  seduced.     This  observation  may 
also  be  applied  to  the  case  of  the  false  Christs.     In  certain  of  these 
cases  there  is  also  something  judicial.     When  men  have  yielded  them- 
selves so  far  to  vice,  as  to  seek  error  as  its  excuse,  it  seems  a  principle 
of  the  Divine  government  to  make  their  sin  their  punishment.     The 
Egyptians  were  besotted  with  their  idolatries;  they  had  rejected  the 
clearest  evidences  of  the  truth,  and  were  left  to  the  delusions  of  the 
demons  they  worshipped.    The  Israelites,  in  those  parts  of  their  history 
to   which  Moses  refers,  were  passionately  inclined  to  idolatry;    they 
wished  any  pretence  or  sanction  for  it,  and  were  ready  to  follow  every 
seducer.     What  they  sought,  they  found, — occasions  of  going  astray, 
which  would  have  had  no  effect  upon  them  had  their  hearts  been  right 
with  God.    The  Jews  rejected  a  spiritual  Messiah,  with  all  the  evidences 
of  his  mission ;  but  were  ready  to  follow  any  impostor  who  promised 
them  victory  and  dominion  ;  they  were  disposed  therefore  to  listen  to 
every  pretence,  and  to  become  the  dupes  of  every  illusion.     But  in  no 
instance  was  the  temptation  either  irresistible,  or  even  strong,  except  as 
it  was  made  so  by  their  own  violent  inclinations  to  evil,  and  pronenes« 
to  find  pretences  for  it.     In  all  the  cases  here  supposed,  the  temptation 
to  error  was  never  present  but  in  circumstances  in  which  it  was  con- 
fronted with  the  infinitely  higher  evidence  of  truth,  and  that  not  merely 
in  the  number  or  greatness  of  the  miracles  and  predictions,  but  in  the 
very   nature    of  the   "  signs"  themselves, — one    being  unquestionably 
miraculous,  the  other  being  at  best  strange  and  surprising,  without  a 
decided  miraculous  or  prophetic  character.     The  sudden  and  unper- 
ceived  substitution  of  serpents  for  the  rods  of  the  magicians,  might,  if 
the  matter  had   ended  there,   have  neutralized  the  effect  of  the  real 
transformation  of  Aaron's  rod  ;  but  then  the  serpent  of  Moses  swallowed 
up  the  others.     When  frogs  were  already  over  all  the  land  of  Egypt, 
the  imitation  must  have  been  confined  to  some  spot  purposely  freed 
from  them,  and  for  that  reason  did  not  bear  an  unequivocal  character  ; 
nor  could  the  turning  of  water  from  a  well  into  blood,  (no  difficult  mat- 
ter to  pretend,)  rival  for  an  instant  the  conversion  of  the  waters  of  the 
mighty  Nile,  and  the  innumerable  channels  and  reservoirs  fed  by  it, 
into  that  offensive  substance.     To  these  we  are  to  add  the  miracle* 
which  followed,  and  which  obliged  even  the  magicians  to  confess  "  the 
finger  of  God."     To  the  people  whom  the  false  prophet  spoken  of  in 
Deuteronomy  should  attempt  to  lead  astray  from  the  law,  all  its  mag- 


168  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

nificent  evidences  were  known  ;  the  glory  of  God  was  then  between  the 
cherubim;  the  Urim  and  Thummim  gave  their  responses;  and  the 
government  was  a  standing  miracle.  To  those  who  followed  false 
Christs,  the  evidences  of  the  mission  of  Jesus  were  known  ;  his  unequi- 
vocal miracles,  it  is  singular,  were  never  denied  by  those  very  Jews 
who,  ever  looking  out  for  deception,  cried  as  to  the  expected  Christ, 
M  Lo,  he  is  here,  and  lo,  he  is  there  !"  The  "  working  of  Satan"  and  the 
'•  lying  wonders"  mentioned  in  the  Thessalonians,  were  to  take  place 
among  a  people,  who  not  only  had  the  words  of  Christ  and  his  apostles, 
but  acknowledged  too  their  Divine  authority  as  established  by  miracles 
and  prophecies,  the  unequivocal  character  of  which  theirs  never  even 
pretended  to  equal.  Thus,  in  none  of  the  instances  adduced  in  the 
argument,  was  there  any  exposure  to  inevitable  error,  by  any  evidence 
in  favour  of  falsehood ;  the  evidence  of  the  truth  was  in  all  these  cases 
at  hand,  and  presented  itself  under  an  obviously  distinct  and  superior 
character.  We  conclude  therefore  that  the  objection  to  the  conclusive 
nature  of  the  proof  of  the  truth  of  the  Scriptures  from  miracles  and  pro- 
phecies grounded  upon  the  supposed  admission  that  miracles  may  be 
wrought  and  prophecies  uttered  in  favour  of  error,  is  not  only  without 
foundation,  but  that  as  far  as  Scriptural  evidence  goes  on  this  subject,  the 
demonstrative  nature  of  real  miracles  and  prophecies  is,  by  what  it 
really  admits  as  to  "  the  working  of  Satan,"  abundantly  confirmed.  It 
does  not  admit  that  real  miracles  can  be  wrought,  or  real  prophecies 
uttered ;  and  it  never  supposes  simulated  ones,  when  opposed  to  revealed 
truth,  but  under  circumstances  in  which  they  can  be  detected,  or  which 
give  them  an  equivocal  character,  and  in  which  they  may  be  compared 
with  true  miracles  and  predictions,  so  that  none  can  be  deceived  by  them 
but  those  who  are  violently  bent  on  error  and  transgression. 

Another  objection  to  the  conclusiveness  of  the  proof  from  miracles,  is 
brought  from  the  pretended  heathen  miracles  of  Aristeas,  Pythagoras, 
Alexander  of  Pontus,  Vespasian,  and  Apollonius  Tyanaeus,  and  from  ac- 
counts of  miracles  in  the  Romish  Church ;  but  as  this  objection  has 
been  very  feebly  urged  by  the  adversaries  of  Christianity,  as  though 
they  themselves  were  ashamed  of  the  argument,  our  notice  of  it  shall 
be  brief.  For  a  full  consideration  of  the  objection  we  refer  to  the 
authors  mentioned  below.   (4) 

With  respect  to  most  of  these  pretended  miracles,  we  may  observe, 
that  it  was  natural  to  expect  that  pretences  to  miraculous  powers  should 
be  made  under  every  form  of  religion,  since  the  opinion  of  the  earliest 
ages  was  in  favour  of  the  occurrence  of  such  events ;  and  as  truth  had 
been  thus  sanctioned,  it  is  not  surprising  that  error  should  attempt  to 
counterfeit  its  authority.    But  they  are  all  deficient  in  evidence.    Many 

(4)  Mackniqht's  Truth  of  the  Gospel  History ;  Douglas's  Criterion ;  Cxsir 
jeu.  on  Miracles ;  and  Paley's  Evidences. 


FIRST.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  169 

of  them  indeed  are  absurd,  and  carry  the  air  of  fable  ;  and  as  to  others, 
it  is  well  observed  by  Dr.  Macknight,  {Truth  of  the  Gospel  History,) 
that  "  they  are  vouched  to  us  by  no  such  testimony  as  can  induce  a 
prudent  man  to  give  them  credit.  They  are  not  reported  by  any  eye 
witnesses  of  them,  nor  by  any  persons  on  whom  they  were  wrought 
Those  who  relate  them  do  not  even  pretend  to  have  received  them  from 
eye  witnesses ;  we  know  them  only  by  vague  reports,  the  original  of 
which  no  one  can  exactly  trace.  The  miracles  ascribed  to  Pythagoras 
were  not  reported  until  several  hundred  years  after  his  death  ;  and  those 
of  Apollonius,  one  hundred  years  after  his  death."  Many  instances 
which  are  given,  especially  among  the  papists,  may  be  resolved  into 
imagination  ;  others,  both  popish  and  pagan,  into  the  artifice  of  priests, 
who  were  of  the  ruling  party,  and  therefore  feared  no  punishment  even 
upon  detection ;  and  in  almost  all  cases,  we  find  that  they  were  per- 
formed in  favour  of  the  dominant  religion,  and  before  persons  whose 
religious  prejudices  were  to  be  flattered  and  strengthened  by  them,  and 
of  course,  persons  very  much  disposed  to  become  dupes.  Bishop  Doug, 
las  has  laid  down  the  following  decisive  and  clear  rules  in  his  "  Crite- 
rion," for  trying  miracles.  That  we  may  reasonably  suspect  any  ac- 
counts of  miracles  to  be  false,  if  they  are  not  published  till  long  after 
the  time  when  they  are  said  to  have  been  performed — or  if  they  were 
not  first  published  in  the  place  where  they  are  said  to  have  been  wrought 
— or  if  they  probably  were  suffered  to  pass  without  examination,  in  the 
time,  and  at  the  place  where  they  took  their  rise.  These  are  general 
grounds  of  suspicion,  to  which  may  be  added  particular  ones,  arising 
from  any  circumstances  which  plainly  indicate  imposture  and  artifice  on 
the  one  hand,  or  credulity  and  imagination  on  the  other. 

Before  such  tests,  all  pagan,  popish,  and  other  pretended  miracles 
without  exception,  shrink  :  and  they  are  not  for  a  moment  to  be  brought 
into  comparison  with  works  wrought  publicly — in  the  sight  of  thousands, 
and  those  often  opposers  of  the  system  to  be  established  by  them — works 
not  by  any  ingenuity  whatever  to  be  resolved  into  artifice  on  the 
one  part,  or  into  the  effects  of  imagination  on  the  other — works  per- 
formed before  scholars,  statesmen,  rulers,  persecutors ;  of  which  the 
instances  are  numerous,  and  the  places  in  which  they  occurred  various 
— works  published  at  the  time,  and  on  the  very  spot — works  not  in 
favour  of  a  ruling  system,  but  directed  against  every  other  religious 
establishment  under  heaven;  and,  for  giving  their  testimony  to  which, 
the  original  witnesses  had  therefore  to  expect,  and  did  in  succession 
receive,  reproach,  stripes,  imprisonment,  and  death. 

It  is  also  of  importance  to  observe,  that  whatever  those  pretended 
miracles  might  be,  whether  false  or  exaggerated  relations,  or  artful  im- 
postures ;  or  even  were  we  to  admit  some  of  them  to  have  been  occur- 
rences of  an  extraordinary  and  inexplicable  kind,  they  are  for  the  most 


170  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  |PART 

part,  whether  pagan  or  papal,  a  sort  of  insulated  occurrences,  which  do 
not  so  much  as  profess  to  prove  any  thing  of  common  interest  to  the 
world.  As  they  are  destitute  of  convincing  marks  of  credibility,  so  they 
have  no  inherent  propriety,  nor  any  perceptible  connection  with  a  design 
of  importance  to  mankind.  But  "the  Scriptures  of  the  Old  Testament 
record  a  continued  succession  of  wonderful  works,  connected  also  in  a  most 
remarkable  manner  with  the  system  carried  on  from  the  fall  of  Adam 
to  the  coming  of  Christ.  The  very  first  promise  of  a  Redeemer,  who 
should  bruise  the  serpent's  head,  appears  to  have  been  accompanied  with 
a  signal  miracle,  by  which  the  nature  of  the  serpent  tribe  was  instantly 
changed,  and  reduced  to  a  state  of  degradation  and  baseness,  expressive 
of  the  final  overthrow  of  that  evil  spirit,  through  whose  deceits  man  had 
fallen  from  his  innocence  and  glory.  The  mark  set  upon  Cain  was 
probably  some  miraculous  change  in  his  external  appearance,  trans- 
mitted  to  his  posterity,  and  serving  as  a  memorial  of  the  first  apostasy 
from  the  true  religion.  The  general  deluge  was  a  signal  instance  of 
miraculous  punishment  inflicted  upon  the  whole  human  race,  when  they 
had  departed  from  the  living  God,  and  were  become  utterly  irreclaim- 
able. '  The  dispersion  of  Babel,  and  the  confusion  of  tongues,  indicated 
the  Divine  purpose  of  preventing  an  intermixture  of  idolaters  and  Athe- 
ists with  the  worship  of  the  true  God.  The  wonders  wrought  in  Egypt, 
by  the  hand  of  Moses,  were  pointedly  directed  against  the  senseless  and 
abominable  idolatries  of  that  devoted  country,  and  were  manifestly 
designed  to  expose  their  absurdity  and  falsehood,  as  well  as  to  effect  the 
deliverance  of  God's  people,  Israel.  The  subsequent  miracles  in  the 
desert,  had  an  evident  tendency  to  wean  the  Israelites  from  an  attach- 
ment to  the  false  deities  of  the  surrounding  nations,  and  to  instruct  them 
by  figurative  representations  in  that  •  better  covenant,  established  upon 
better  promises,''  of  which  the  Mosaic  institute  was  designed  to  be  a 
shadow  and  a  type.  The  settlement  of  the  Israelites  in  Canaan  under 
their  leader  Joshua,  and  their  continuance  in  it  for  a  long  succession  of 
ages,  were  accompanied  with  a  series  of  wonders,  all  operating  to  that 
one  purpose  of  the  Almighty,  the  separation  of  his  people  from  a  wicked 
and  apostate  world,  and  the  preservation  of  a  chosen  seed,  through 
whom  all  the  nations  of  the  earth  should  be  blessed.  Every  miracle 
wrought  under  the  Jewish  theocracy,  appears  to  have  been  intended, 
either  to  correct  the  superstitions  and  impieties  of  the  neighbouring 
nations,  and  to  bring  them  to  a  conviction  that  the  Lord  Jehovah  was 
the  true  God,  and  that  beside  him  there  was  none  other  ;  or  to  reclaim 
the  Jews,  whenever  they  betrayed  a  disposition  to  relapse  into  heathen- 
ish abominations,  and  to  forsake  that  true  religion  which  the  Almighty 
was  pledged  to  uphold  throughout  all  ages,  and  for  the  completion  of 
which  he  was  then,  in  his  infinite  wisdom,  arranging  all  human 
events 


FIRST. J  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  171 

"In  the  miracles  which  our  Lord  performed,  he  not  only  evinced  hist 
Divine  power,  but  fulfilled  many  important  prophecies  relating  to  him  as 
the  Messiah.  Thus  they  afforded  a  two-fold  evidence  of  his  authority. 
In  several  of  them  we  perceive  likewise  a  striking  reference  to  the 
especial  object  of  his  mission.  Continually  did  he  apply  these  wonder- 
ful works  to  the  purpose  of  inculcating  and  establishing  doctrines,  no  less 
wonderful  and  interesting  to  the  sons  of  men. 

"  The  same  may  likewise  be  remarked  of  the  miracles  recorded  of 
the  apostles,  after  our  Lord's  departure  from  this  world,  in  none  of 
which  do  we  find  any  thing  done  for  mere  ostentation  ;  but  an  evi- 
dent attention  to  the  great  purpose  of  the  Gospel,  that  of  '  turning  men 
from  darkness  unto  light,  and  from  the  power  of  Satan  unto  God.' 

"  It  seems  impossible  for  any  thinking  man  to  take  such  a  view  as 
this  of  the  peculiar  design  and  use  of  the  Scripture  miracles,  and  not  to 
perceive  in  them  the  unerring  counsels  of  infinite  wisdom,  as  well  as 
the  undoubted  exertions  of  infinite  power.  When  we  see  the  seveial 
parts  of  this  stupendous  scheme  thus  harmonizing  and  co-operating  for 
the  attainment  of  one  specific  object,  of  the  highest  importance  to  the 
whole  race  of  mankind  ;  we  cannot  but  be  struck  with  a  conviction  of 
the  absolute  impossibility  of  imposture  or  enthusiasm,  in  any  part  of 
the  proceeding.  We  are  compelled  to  acknowledge,  that  they  exhibit 
proofs  of  Divine  agency,  carried  on  in  one  continued  series,  such  as  no 
other  system  hath  ever  pretended  to  :  such  as  not  only  surpasses  all 
human  ingenuity,  but  seems  impossible  to  have  been  effected  by  any 
combination  of  created  beings."  (Van  Mildert's  Boyle  Lectures.) 

On  miracles  therefore,  like  those  which  attest  the  mission  of  Moses 
and  of  Christ,  we  may  safely  rest  the  proof  of  the  authority  of  both,  and 
say  to  each  of  them,  though  with  a  due  sense  of  the  superiority  of  the 
"  Son"  to  the  "  servant,"  "  Rabbi,  we  know  that  thou  art  a  teacher 
come  from  God,  for  no  man  can  do  these  miracles  that  thou  doest,  except 
God  be  with  him." 


Note  A. — Page  158. 

In  reply  to  the  objection  that  "  Moses  describes  the  works  of  the  magicians  in 
the  very  same  language  as  he  does  his  own,  and  therefore  that  there  is  reason  to 
conclude  that  they  were  equally  miraculous,"  Dr.  Farmer  remarks, — 

**  1.  That  nothing  is  more  common  than  to  speak  of  professed  jugglers,  as 
doing  what  they  pretend  and  appear  to  do,  and  that  this  language  never  misleads, 
when  we  reflect  what  sort  of  men  are  spoken  of,  namely,  mere  impostors  on  the 
sight :  why  might,  not  Moses  then  use  the  common  popular  language  when  speak- 
ing of  the  magicians,  without  any  danger  of  misconstruction,  inasmuch  as  the 
subject  he  was  treating,  all  the  circumstances  of  the  narrative,  and  the  opinion 
which  the  historian  was  known  to  entertain  of  the  inefficacy  and  imposture  cf 
magic,  did  all  concur  to  prevent  mistakes  ? 


172  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

"2.  Moses  does  not  affirm  that  there  was  a  perfect  conformity  between  his 
works  and  those  of  the  magicians;  he  does  not  close  the  respective  relations  of 
his  own  particular  miracles,  with  saying  the  magicians  did  that  thing,  or  accord. 
*vg  to  what  he  did,  so  did  they,  a  form  of  speech  used  on  this  occasion  no  less 
than  three  times  in  one  chapter,  to  describe  the  exact  correspondence  between 
the  orders  of  God  and  the  behaviour  of  his  servants  ;  but  makes  choice  of  a  word 
of  great  latitude,  such  as  does  not  necessarily  express  any  thing  more  than  a 
general  similitude,  such  as  is  consistent  with  a  difference  in  many  important 
respects,  they  did  so  or  in  like  manner  as  he  had. — That  a  perfect  imitation  could 
not  be  designed  by  this  word,  is  evident  from  its  being  applied  to  cases  in  which 
such  an  imitation  was  absolutely  impracticable :  for,  when  Aaron  had  converted 
all  the  waters  of  Egypt  into  blood,  we  are  told  the  magicians  did  so,  that  is, 
something  in  like  sort.  Nor  can  it  be  supposed  that  they  covered  the  land  of 
Egypt  with  frogs,  this  had  been  done  already ;  they  could  only  appear  to  bring 
them  over  some  small  space  cleared  for  the  purpose.  But  what  is  more  decisive, 
the  word  imports  nothing  more  than  their  attempting  some  imitation  of  Moses, 
for  it  is  used  when  they  failed  in  their  attempt :  They  did  so  to  bring  forth  lice, 
but  they  could  not. 

"  3.  So  far  is  Moses  from  ascribing  the  tricks  of  the  magicians  to  the  invoca- 
tion and  power  of  demons,  or  to  any  superior  beings  whatever,  that  he  does  most 
expressly  refer  all  they  did  or  attempted  in  imitation  of  himself  to  human  artifice 
and  imposture.  The  original  words,  which  are  translated  inchantments,  (5)  are 
entirely  diiferent  from  that  rendered  enchantments  in  other  passages  of  Scripture, 
and  do  not  carry  in  them  any  sort  of  reference  to  sorcery  or  magic,  or  the  inter- 
position of  any  spiritual  agents;  they  import  deception  and  concealment,  and 
ought  to  have  been  rendered  secret  sleights  or  jugglings,  and  are  thus  translated 
even  by  those  who  adopt  the  common  hypothesis  with  regard  to  the  magicians. 
These  secret  sleights  and  jugglings  are  expressly  referred  to  the  magicians,  not 
to  the  devil,  who  is  not  so  much  as  mentioned  in  the  history.  Should  we  there- 
fore be  asked,  (6)  How  it  came  to  pass,  in  case  the  works  of  the  magicians  were 
performed  by  sleight  of  hand,  that  Moses  has  given  no  hint  hereof?  we  answer, 
He  has  not  contented  himself  with  a  hint  of  this  kind,  but,  at  the  same  time  that 
he  ascribes  his  own  miracles  to  Jehovah,  he  has,  in  the  most  direct  terms, 
resolved  every  thing  done  in  imitation  of  them  entirely  to  the  fraudulent  con- 
trivances of  his  opposers,  to  legerdemain  or  sleight  of  hand,  in  contradistinction 
from  magical  incantations.  Moses  therefore  could  not  design  to  represent  their 
works  as  real  miracles,  at  the  very  time  he  was  branding  them  as  impostures. 

"  It  remains  only  to  show,  that  the  works  performed  by  the  magicians  did  not 
exceed  the  cause  to  which  they  are  ascribed ;  or  in  other  words,  the  magicians 
proceeded  no  farther  in  imitation  of  Moses,  than  human  artifice  might  enable 
them  to  go,  (while  the  miracles  of  Moses  were  not  liable  to  the  same  irnpeach- 

(5)  The  original  word  used,  Exod.  viii,  11,  is  Belahatehem  ;  and  that  which  occurs,  ch.  vii,  22, 
and  ch.  viii,  7,  18,  is  Belatehem;  the  former  is  probably  derived  from  Lahat,  which  signifies  to 
burn,  and  the  substantive  aflame  or  shining  sword-blade,  and  is  applied  to  the  flaming  sword 
which  guarded  the  tree  of  life,  Gen.  iii,  24.  Those  who  formerly  used  legerdemain,  dazzled  and 
deceived  the  sight  of  spectators  by  the  art  of  brandishing  their  swords,  and  sometimes  seemed  to 
eat  them,  and  to  thrust  them  into  their  bodies ;  and  the  expression  seems  to  intimate,  that  the 
magicians  appearing  to  turn  their  rods  into  serpents,  was  owing  to  their  eluding  the  eyes  of  the 
spectators  by  a  dexterous  management  of  their  swords.  In  the  preceding  instances  they  made  use 
of  some  different  contrivance,  for  the  latter  word,  belatehem,  comes  from  Laat,  to  cover  or  hide, 
(which  some  think  the  former  word  also  does,)  and  therefore  fitly  expresses  any  secret  artifices oi 
methods  of  deception,  whereby  false  appearances  are  imposed  upon  the  spectators. 

(6)  As  we  are  by  Dr.  Macknight,  in  his  Truth  of  the  Gospel  History,  p.  312. 


riRST.]  THEOLOOICAL    INSTITUTES.  173 

ment,  and  bore  upon  themselves  the  plainest  signatures  of  that  Divine  power  to 
which  they  are  referred.)  If  this  can  be  proved,  the  interposition  of  the  devil  on 
this  occasion  will  appear  to  be  an  hypothesis  invented  without  any  kind  of  ne- 
cessity, as  it  certainly  is  without  any  authority  from  the  sacred  text. 

"  1.  With  regard  to  the  first  attempt  of  the  magicians,  the  turning  rods  into 
terpents :  it  cannot  be  accounted  extraordinar}'  that  they  should  seem  to  succeed 
in  it,  when  we  consider  that  these  men  were  famous  for  the  art  of  dazzling  and 
deceiving  the  sight;  and  that  serpents,  being  first  rendered  tractable  and  harm- 
less, as  they  easily  may,  have  had  a  thousand  different  tricks  played  with  them, 
to  the  astonishment  of  the  spectators. 

"  2.  With  regard  to  the  next  attempt  of  the  magicians  to  imitate  Moses,  who 
had  already  turned  all  the  running  and  standing  waters  of  Egypt  into  blood,  there 
is  no  difficulty  in  accounting  for  their  success  in  the  degree  in  which  they  suc- 
ceeded. For  it  was  during  the  continuance  of  this  judgment,  when  no  water 
could  be  procured  but  by  digging  tovnd  about  the  river,  that  the  magicians 
attempted  by  some  proper  preparations  to  change  the  colour  of  the  small  quantity 
that  was  brought  them,  (probably  endeavouring  to  persuade  Pharaoh  that  they 
could  as  easily  have  turned  a  larger  quantity  into  blood.)  In  a  case  of  this  nature 
imposture  might,  and,  as  we  learn  from  history,  often  did  take  place.  It  is  re- 
lated by  Valerius  Maximus,  {Lib.  i,  c.  6,)  that  the  wine  poured  into  the  cup  of 
Xerxes  was  three  times  changed  into  blood.  But  such  trifling  feats  as  these 
could  not  at  all  disparage  the  miracle  of  Moses ;  the  vast  extent  of  which  raised 
it  above  the  suspicion  of  fraud,  and  stamped  upon  every  heart,  that  was  not 
steeled  against  all  conviction,  the  strongest  impression  of  its  divinity.  For  he 
turned  their  streams,  rivers,  ponds,  and  the  water  in  all  their  receptacles,  into 
blood.  And  the  fish  that  was  in  the  river  (Nile)  died ;  and  the  river  stank,  Exod. 
rii,  19-21.  * 

"  3.  Pharaoh  not  yielding  to  this  evidence,  God  proceeded  to  farther  punish- 
ments, and  covered  the  whole  land  of  Egypt  with  frogs.  (7)  Before  these  frogs 
were  removed,  the  magicians  undertook  to  bring  into  some  place  cleared  for  the 
purpose  a  fresh  supply ;  which  they  might  easily  do  when  there  was  such  plenty 
every  where  at  hand.  Here  also  the  narrow  compass  of  the  work  exposed  it  to 
the  suspicion  of  being  effected  by  human  art;  to  which  the  miracle  of  Moses  was 
not  liable;  the  infinite  number  of  frogs  which  filled  the  whole  kingdom  of  Egypt, 
(so  that  their  ovens,  beds,  and  tables,  swarmed  with  them,)  being  a  proof  of  their 
immediate  miraculous  production.  Beside,  the  magicians  were  unable  to  procure 
their  removal;  which  was  accomplished  by  Moses,  at  the  submissive  application 
of  Pharaoh,  and  at  the  very  time  that  Pharaoh  himself  chose,  the  more  clearly  to 
convince  him  that  God  was  the  author  of  these  miraculous  judgments,  and  that 
their  infliction  or  removal  did  not  depend  upon  the  influence  of  the  elements  or 
stars,  at  set  times  or  in  critical  junctures,  Exod.  viii,  8. 

"  4.  The  history  of  the  last  attempt  of  the  magicians  confirms  the  account 
here  given  of  all  their  former  ones.  Moses  turned  all  the  dust  of  the  land  into 
lice ;  and  this  plague,  like  the  two  preceding  ones,  being  inflicted  at  the  word  of 
Moses,  and  extended  over  the  whole  kingdom  of  Egypt,  must  necessarily  have 
been  owing,  not  to  human  art,  but  to  a  Divine  power.  Nevertheless,  the  motives 
upon  which  the  magicians  at  first  engaged  in  the  contest  with  Moses,  the  shame 
of  desisting,  and  some  slight  appearances  of  success  in  their  former  attempts, 
prompted  them  still  to  carry  on  tho  imposture,  and  to  try  with  their  enchantments 
to  bring  forth  lice,  but  they  could  not.     With  all  their  skill  in  magic,  and  with  all 

(7)  Exod.  viii,  6-8.  Nor,  indeed,  can  it  be  imagined,  (bat  after  this  or  the  former  platpie  htvi 
been  removed,  Pharaoh  would  orf*;r  his  magicians  to  renew  either 


174  THEOLOGICAL   INSTITUTES  'PART 

their  dexterity  in  deceiving  the  spectators,  they  could  not  even  succeed  so  far  as 
they  had  done  in  former  instances,  by  producing  a  specious  counterfeit  of  this 
work  of  Moses.  Hod  they  hitherto  performed  real  miracles  by  the  assistance  of 
the  devil,  how  came  they  to  desist  now?  It  cannot  be  a  greater  miracle  to  pro- 
duce lice,  than  to  turn  rods  into  serpents,  water  into  blood,  and  to  create  froga. 
It  has,  indeed,  been  very  often  said,  that  the  devil  was  now  laid  under  a  restraint; 
but  hitherto  no  proof  of  this  assertion  has  been  produced  The  Scripture  is  silent, 
both  as  to  the  devil  being  now  restrained  from  interposing  any  farther  in  favour 
of  the  magicians,  and  as  to  his  having  afforded  them  his  assistance  on  the  former 
occasions.  But  if  we  agree  with  Moses  in  ascribing  to  the  magicians  nothing 
more  than  the  artifice  and  dexterity  which  belonged  to  their  profession ;  we  shall 
find  that  their  want  of  success  in  their  last  attempt  was  owing  to  the  different 
nature  and  circumstances  of  their  enterprise." 


Note  B. — Page  166. 

"  But  if  at  any  time  evil  spirits,  by  their  subtlety  and  experience,  and  know, 
ledge  of  affairs  in  the  world,  did  foretell  things  which  accordingly  came  to  pass, 
they  were  things  that  happened  not  long  after,  and  commonly  such  as  them- 
selves did  excite  and  prompt  men  to.  Thus,  when  the  conspiracy  against  Cesar 
was  come  just  to  be  put  into  execution,  and  the  devil  had  his  agents  concerned 
in  it,  he  could  foretell  the  time  and  place  of  his  death.  But  it  had  been  foretold 
to  Pompey,  Crassus,  and  Cesar  himself  before,  as  Tully  informs  us  from  his  own 
knowledge,  that  they  should  all  die  in  their  beds,  and  in  an  honourable  old  age, 
who  yet  all  died  violent  deaths.  Wise  and  observing  men  have  sometimes  been 
able  to  make  strange  predictions  concerning  the  state  of  affairs  ;  and  therefore 
spirits  may  be  much  more  able  to  do  it.  Evil  spirits  could  fortell  what  they  were 
permitted  to  inflict  or  procure:  they  might  have  foretold  the  calamities  of  Job, 
or  the  death  of  Ahab  at  Ramoth-gilead. 

"The  devil  could  not  always  foretell  what  was  to  come  to  pass,  and  therefore 
his  agents  had  need  of  their  vaults  and  hollow  statues,  and  other  artifices  to  con- 
ceal their  ignorance,  and  help  them  out  when  their  arts  of  conjuration  failed. 
But  we  have  no  reason  to  think  that  the  devil,  who  is  so  industrious  to  promote 
his  evil  ends,  by  all  possible  means,  would  omit  such  an  opportunity  as  was  given 
him  bv  the  opinion  which  the  heathens  had  of  their  oracles  ;  and  the  trials  which 
Croesus  and  Trajan  made  are  sufficient  to  prove  that  there  was  something  super- 
natural and  diabolical  in  them.  Croesus  sent  to  have  many  oracles  consulted  at 
a  set  time,  and  the  question  to  be  put  to  them  was,  what  Croesus  himself  at  that 
time  was  doing ;  and  he  resolved  to  be  employed  about  the  most  improbable  thing 
that  could  be  imagined,  for  he  was  boiling  a  tortoise  and  a  lamb  together  in  a 
brass  pot;  and  yet  the  oracle  of  Delphi  discovered  to  the  messengers  what  the 
king  was  then  about.  Trajan,  when  he  was  going  into  Parthia,  sent  a  blank 
paper  sealed  up,  to  an  oracle  of  Assyria  for  an  answer :  the  oracle  returned  him 
another  blank  paper,  to  show  that  it  was  not  so  to  be  imposed  upon. 

"  But  though  things  of  present  concernment  were  discovered  both  to  Croesus 
and  Trajan  beyond  all  human  power  to  know,  yet  both  were  imposed  upon  by 
ambiguous  answers,  when  they  consulted  about  things  future,  of  which  the  devil 
could  not  attain  the  knowledge. 

"  Many  of  the  heathen  priests  themselves,  upon  examination,  publicly  confessed 
several  of  their  oroclcs  to  be  impostures,  and  discovered  the  whole  contrivance 


FIRST.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  175 

and  management  of  the  deceit,  which  was  entered  upon  record.  And  in  the  rest, 
tin;  power  of  the  devil  was  always  so  limited  and  restrained,  as  to  afford  sufficient 
means  to  undeceive  men,  though  many  of  his  predictions  might  come  to  pass." 
(Jenkins's  Reasonableness  of  Christianity.) 

"  Many  of  the  learned  regard  all  the  heathen  oracles  as  tho  result  of  the 
grossest  imposture.  Some  consider  them  as  the  work  of  evil  spirits.  Others  are 
of  opinion,  that  through  these  oracles  some  real  prophecies  were  occasionally 
vouchsafed  to  the  Gentile  world,  for  their  instruction  and  consolation.  But  to 
whichsoever  of  these  opinions  we  may  incline,  it  will  not  be  difficult  to  discover 
a  radical  difference  between  these  and  the  Scripture  prophecies. 

"  In  the  heathen  oracles,  we  cannot  discern  any  clear  and  unequivocal  tokens 
of  genuine  prophecy.  They  were  destitute  of  dignity  and  importance,  had  no 
connection  with  each  other,  tended  to  no  object  of  general  concern,  and  never 
looked  into  times  remote  from  their  own.  We  read  only  of  some  few  predictions 
and  prognostications,  scattered  among  the  writings  of  poets  and  philosophers, 
most  of  which,  beside  being  very  weakly  authenticated,  appear  to  have  been 
answers  to  questions  of  merely  local,  personal,  and  temporary  concern,  relating  to 
the  issue  of  affairs  then  actually  in  hand,  and  to  events  speedily  to  be  determined. 
Far  from  attempting  to  form  any  chain  of  prophecies,  respecting  things  far 
distant  as  to  time  or  place,  or  matters  contrary  to  human  probability,  and  re- 
quiring supernatural  agency  to  effect  them,  the  heathen  priests  and  soothsayers 
did  not  even  pretend  to  a  systematic  and  connected  plan.  They  hardly  dared, 
indeed,  to  assume  the  prophetic  character  in  its  full  force,  but  stood  trembling,  as 
it  were,  on  the  brink  of  futurity,  conscious  of  their  inability  to  venture  beyond 
the  depths  of  human  conjecture.  Hence  their  predictions  became  so  fleeting,  so 
futile,  so  uninteresting,  that  they  were  never  collected  together  as  worthy  of 
preservation,  but  soon  fell  into  disrepute  and  almost  total  oblivion. 

"  The  Scripture  prophecies,  on  the  other  hand,  constitute  a  series  of  pre. 
dictions,  relating  principally  to  one  grand  object,  of  universal  importance,  tho 
work  of  man's  redemption,  and  carried  on  in  regular  progression  through  the 
Patriarchal,  Jewish,  and  Christian  dispensations,  with  a  harmony  and  uniformity 
of  design,  clearly  indicating  one  and  the  same  Divine  Author,  who  alone  could 
say,  '  Remember  the  former  things  of  old ;  for  I  am  God,  and  there  is  none 
else :  I  am  God,  and  there  is  none  like  me  ;  declaring  the  end  from  the  begin- 
ning,  and  from  ancient  times  the  things  that  are  not  yet  done,  saying,  My  counsel 
shall  stand,  and  I  will  do  all  my  pleasure.'  The  genuine  prophets  of  the  Almighty 
beheld  these  things  with  a  clear  and  steadfast  eye;  they  declared  them  with 
authority  and  confidence;  and  they  gave,  moreover,  signs  from  heaven  for  the 
conviction  of  others.  Accordingly  their  writings  have  been  handed  down  from 
age  to  age  ;  have  been  preserved  with  scrupulous  fidelity  ;  and  have  ever  been 
regarded  with  reverence,  from  the  many  incontestable  evidences  of  their  accom- 
plishment, and  from  their  inseparable  connection  with  the  religious  hopes  and 
expectations  of  mankind."  (Bishop  of  Llandajf.) 


CHAPTER  XVII. 

Prophecies  of  Scripture. 
The  nature  and  force  of  the  argument  from  prophecy  have  been 
already  stated;   (Vide  chap,  ix  ;)  and  it  has  been  proved,  that  where 
real  predictions  are  uttered, — not  happy  conjectures  whirh  shrewd  and 


l^Q  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

observing  men  may  sometimes  make,  but  predictions  which  imply  fore- 
sight  of  events  dependent  upon  the  various  contingencies  of  human 
affairs,  and  a  knowledge  of  the  characters,  dispositions,  and  actions  of 
persons  yet  unborn,  so  as  to  decide  unerringly  on  the  conduct  which 
they  will  pursue — they  can  only  be  uttered  by  inspired  men,  and  the 
author  of  such  communications  can  be  no  other  than  the  infinite  and 
omniscient  God,  "  showing  to  his  servants  the  things  which  shall  be 
hereafter"  in  order  to  authenticate  their  mission,  and  to  affix  the  stamp 
of  his  own  infallible  authority  upon  their  doctrine. 

The  authenticity  and  the  antiquity  of  the  records  which  contain  these 
predictions,  have  been  already  established ;  and  the  only  subject  of 
inquiry  proper  to  this  chapter  is,  the  prophetic  character  of  the  predic- 
tions said  to  be  contained  in  the  Old  and  New  Testaments.  A  few 
general  observations  may  however  be  previously  allowed. 

1.  The  instances  to  be  considered  by  those  who  would  fully  satisfy 
themselves  on  this  point  are  not  few  but  many.  The  believer  in  the 
Divine  authority  of  the  Old  and  New  Testaments,  is  ready  to  offer  for 
examination  great  numbers  of  professed  prophecies  relative  to  indi- 
viduals, cities,  states,  the  person  and  offices  of  Messiah,  and  the 
Christian  Church,  which  he  alleges  to  have  been  unequivocally  fulfilled  ; 
independent  of  predictions  which  he  believes  to  be  now  fulfilling ;  or 
which  are  hereafter  to  be  fulfilled  in  the  World. 

2.  If  as  to  the  fulfilment  of  some  particular  prophecies,  the  opinions 
of  men  should  differ,  there  is  an  abundance  of  others,  the  accomplish- 
ment of  which  has  been  so  evident  as  to  defy  any  rational  interpretation 
which  will  not  involve  their  fulfilment ;  while  unbelievers  are  challenged 
to  show  any  clear  prediction  of  Holy  Scripture  which  has  been  falsified 
by  the  event  throughout  the  whole  range  of  those  ages  which  are  com- 
prehended by  the  Bible,  from  the  Pentateuch  to  the  Apocalypse. 

3.  The  predictions  in  Scripture  have  already  been  distinguished  in 
their  character  from  the  oracles  and  divinations  of  the  heathen  ;  (Vide 
chap,  xvi ;)  and  it  may  here  be  farther  observed,  that  they  are  not, 
generally,  separate  and  insulated  predictions  of  the  future,  arising  out  of 
accidental  circumstances,  and  connecting  themselves  with  merely  indi- 
vidual interests  and  temporary  occasions.  On  the  contrary,  they  chiefly 
relate  to,  and  arise  out  of  a  grand  scheme  for  the  moral  recovery  of  the 
human  race  from  ignorance,  vice,  and  wretchedness.  They  speak  of 
the  agents  to  be  employed  in  it,  and  especially  of  the  great  agent,  the 
Re«ee>ikr  himself;  and  of  those  mighty  and  awful  proceedings  of 
Providence  as  to  the  nations  of  the  earth,  by  which  judgment  and  mercy 
are  exercised  with  reference  both  to  the  ordinary  principles  of  moral 
government,  and  especially  to  this  restoring  economy,  to  its  struggles, 
its  oppositions,  and  its  triumphs.  They  all  meet  in  Christ,  as  in  their 
proper  centre,  and  in  him  only,  however  many  of  the  single  lines,  when 

f 


FIRST.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  177 

considered  apart,  may  be  imagined  to  have  another  direction,  and  though 
they  may  pass  through  intermediate  events.  "  If  we  look,"  says  Bishop 
Hurd,  "into  the  prophetic  writings,  we  find  that  prophecy  is  of  a  pro- 
digious extent ;  that  it  commenced  from  the  fall  of  man,  and  reaches  to 
the  consummation  of  all  things ;  that  for  many  ages  it  was  delivered 
darkly,  to  a  few  persons,  and  with  large  intervals  from  the  date  of  one 
prophecy  to  that  of  another ;  but  at  length  became  more  clear,  more 
frequent,  and  was  uniformly  carried  on  in  the  line  of  one  people,  sepa- 
rated from  the  rest  of  the  world — among  other  reasons  assigned,  for  this 
principally,  to  be  the  repository  of  the  Divine  Oracles  ;  that,  with  some 
intermission,  the  spirit  of  prophecy  subsisted  among  that  people  to  the- 
coming  of  Christ,  that  he  himself,  and  his  apostles,  exercised  this  power 
in  the  most  conspicuous  manner  ;  and  left  behind  them  many  predictions, 
recorded  in  the  books  of  the  New  Testament,  which  profess  to  respect 
very  distant  events,  and  even  run  out  to  the  end  of  time,  or  in  St.  John's 
expression,  to  that  period,  •  when  the  mystery  of  God  shall  be  perfected.' 
Farther,  beside  the  extent  of  this  prophetic  scheme,  the  dignity  of  the 
person  whom  it  concerns,  deserves  our  consideration.  He  is  described 
in  terms  which  excite  the  most  august  and  magnificent  ideas.  He  is 
spoken  of,  indeed,  sometimes  as  being  the  seed  of  the  woman,  and  as  the 
Son  of  man ;  yet  so  as  being  at  the  same  time  of  more  than  mortal 
extraction.  He  is  even  represented  to  us  as  being  superior  to  men  and 
angels ;  as  far  above  all  principality  and  power ;  above  all  that  is  ac- 
counted great,  whether  in  heaven  or  in  earth ;  as  the  Word  and  Wis- 
dom of  God  ;  as  the  eternal  Son  of  the  Father ;  as  the  Heir  of  all  things, 
by  whom  he  made  the  worlds ;  as  the  brightness  of  his  glory,  and  the 
express  image  of  his  person.  We  have  no  words  to  denote  greater 
ideas  than  these :  the  mind  of  man  cannot  elevate  itself  to  nobler  con- 
ceptions. Of  such  transcendent  worth  and  excellence  is  that  Jesus  said 
to  be,  to  whom  all  the  prophets  bear  witness  ! 

"  Lastly,  the  declared  purpose  for  which  the  Messiah,  prefigured  by 
so  long  a  train  of  prophecy,  came  into  the  world,  corresponds  to  all  the 
rest  of  the  representation.  It  was  not  to  deliver  an  oppressed  nation 
from  civil  tyranny,  or  to  erect  a  great  civil  empire,  that  is,  to  achieve  one 
of  those  acts  which  history  accounts  most  heroic.  No :  it  was  not  a 
mighty  state,  a  victor  people — 

Non  res  Romanic  perituraque  regna — 

that  was  worthy  to  enter  into  the  contemplation  of  this  Divine  person. 
It  was  another,  and  far  sublimer  purpose  which  he  came  to  accomplish  ; 
a  purpose,  in  comparison  of  which  all  our  policies  are  poor  and  little, 
and  all  the  performances  of  man  as  nothing.  It  was  to  deliver  a  world 
from  ruin ;  to  abolish  sin  and  death  ;  to  purify  and  immortalize  human 
nature ;  and  thus,  in  the  most  exalted  sense  of  the  words,  to  be 
Vol.  1.  12 


178  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

the  Saviour  of  men  and  the  blessing  of  all  nations.  There  is  no  ex- 
aggeration in  this  account.  I  deliver  the  undoubted  sense,  if  not  always 
the  very  words  of  Scripture.  Consider  then  to  what  this  representation 
amounts.  Let  U3  unite  the  several  parts  of  it,  and  bring  them  to  a 
point.  A  spirit  of  prophecy  pervading  all  time — characterizing  one 
person,  of  the  highest  dignity — and  proclaiming  the  accomplishment  of 
one  purpose,  the  most  beneficent,  the  most  Divine,  the  imagination  itself 
can  project.  Such  is  the  Scriptural  delineation,  whether  we  will  receive 
it  or  no,  of  that  economy  which  we  call  prophetic." 

4.  Prophecy,  in  this  peculiar  sense,  and  on  this  ample  scale,  is  pecu- 
liar to  the  religious  system  of  the  Holy  Scriptures.  Nothing  like  it  is 
found  any  where  beside  ;  and  it  accords  perfectly  with  that  system,  that 
nothing  similar  should  be  found  elsewhere.  "  The  prophecies  of  Scrip- 
ture," says  that  accomplished  scholar.  Sir  W.  Jones,  "  bear  no  resem- 
blance in  form  or  style  to  any  that  can  be  produced  from  the  stores  of 
Grecian,  Indian,  Persian,  or  even  Arabian  learning.  The  antiquity  of 
those  compositions,  no  man  of  learning  doubts ;  and  the  unrestrained 
application  of  them  to  events  long  subsequent  to  their  publication,  is  a 
solid  ground  of  belief  that  they  were  genuine  predictions,  and  conse- 
quently inspired."  The  advantage  of  this  species  of  evidence  belongs 
then  exclusively  to  our  revelation.  Heathenism  never  made  any  clear 
nnd  well-founded  pretensions  to  it.  Mohammedanism,  though  it  stands 
itself  as  a  proof  of  the  truth  of  Scripture  prophecy,  is  unsupported  by 
a  single  prediction  of  its  own.  "To  the  Chrislian  only  belongs  this 
testimony  of  his  faith ;  this  growing  evidence  gathering  strength  by  length 
of  time,  and  affording,  from  age  to  age,  fresh  proofs  of  its  Divine  origin. 
As  a  majestic  river  expands  itself  more  and  more  the  farther  it  removes 
from  its  source,  so  prophecy,  issuing  from  the  first  promise  in  paradise 
as  its  fountain  head,  acquired  additional  strength  and  fulness  as  it  rolled 
down  successive  ages,  and  will  still  go  on  increasing  in  extent  and 
grandeur,  until  it  shall  finally  lose  itself  in  the  ocean  of  eternity." 

5.  The  objection  which  has  been  raised  to  Scripture  prophecy  from 
its  supposed  obscurity,  has  no  solid  foundation.  There  is,  it  is  true,  a 
prophetic  language  of  symbol  and  emblem ;  but  it  is  a  language  which 
is  definite  and  not  equivocal  in  its  meaning,  and  as  easily  mastered  as 
the  language  of  poetry,  by  attentive  persons.  This,  however,  is  not 
always  used.  The  style  of  the  prophecies  of  Scripture  very  often 
differs  in  nothing  from  the  ordinary  style  of  the  Hebrew  poets ;  and,  in 
not  a  few  cases,  and  those  too  on  which  the  Christian  builds  most  in  the 
argument,  it  sinks  into  the  plainness  of  historical  narrative.  Some  de- 
gree of  obscurity  is  essential  to  prophecy :  for  the  end  of  it  was  not  to 
gratify  human  curiosity,  by  a  detail  of  future  events  and  circumstances ; 
and  too  great  clearness  and  speciality  might  have  led  to  many  artful 
attempts  to  fulfil  the  predictions,  and  so  far  the  evidence  of  their  ac- 


FIRST.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  179 

complishment  would  have  been  weakened.  The  two  great  ends  of 
prophecy  are,  to  excite  expectation  before  the  event,  and  then  to  confirm 
the  truth  by  a  striking  and  unequivocal  fulfilment ;  and  it  is  a  sufficient 
anssvor  to  the  allegation  of  the  obscurity  of  the  prophecies  of  Scripture, 
that  they  have  abundantly  accomplished  those  objects,  among  the  most 
intelligent  and  investigating,  as  well  as  among  the  simple  and  unlearned 
in  all  ages.  It  cannot  be  denied,  for  instance,  leaving  out  particular 
cases  which  might  be  given,  that  by  means  of  these  predictions  the 
expectation  of  the  incarnation  and  appearance  of  a  Divine  Restorer  was 
kept  up  among  the  people  to  whom  they  were  given,  and  spread  even  to 
the  neighbouring  nations ;  that  as  these  prophecies  multiplied,  the  hope 
became  more  intease ;  and  that  at  the  time  of  our  Lord's  coming,  the 
expectation  of  the  birth  of  a  very  extraordinary  person  prevailed,  not 
only  among  the  Jews,  but  among  other  nations.  This  purpose  was  then 
sufficiently  answered,  and  an  answer  is  given  to  the  objection.  In  like 
manner  prophecy  serves  as  the  basis  of  our  hope  in  things  yet  to  come  ; 
in  the  final  triumph  of  truth  and  righteousness  on  earth,  the  universal 
establishment  of  the  kingdom  of  our  Lord,  and  the  rewards  of  eternal 
life  to  be  bestowed  at  his  second  appearing.  In  these  all  true  Christians 
agree  ;  and  their  hope  could  not  have  been  so  uniformly  supported  in  all 
ages,  and  under  all  circumstances,  had  not  the  prophecies  and  predictive 
promises  conveyed  with  sufficient  clearness  the  general  knowledge  of 
the  good  for  which  they  looked,  though  many  of  its  particulars  be  uu- 
revealed.  The  second  end  of  prophecy  is,  to  confirm  the  truth  by  the 
subsequent  event ;  and  here  the  question  of  the  actual  fulfilment  of 
Scripture  prophecy  is  involved,  to  which  we  shall  immediately  advert. 
We  only  now  observe,  that  it  is  no  argument  against  the  unequivocal 
fulfilment  of  several  prophecies,  that  many  have  doubted  or  denied  what 
the  believers  in  revelation  have  on  this  subject  so  strenuously  contended 
for.  How  few  of  mankind  have  read  the  Scriptures  with  serious  atten- 
tion, or  been  at  the  pains  to  compare  their  prophecies  with  the  state- 
ments in  history !  How  few,  especially  of  the  objectors  to  the  Bible, 
have  read  it  in  this  manner !  How  many  of  them  have  confessed,  un- 
blushingly,  their  unacquaintance  with  its  contents,  or  have  proved  what 
they  have  not  confessed  by  the  mistakes  and  misrepresentations  into 
which  they  have  fallen.  As  for  the  Jews,  the  evident  dominion  of  their 
prejudices  ;  their  general  averseness  to  discussion  ;  and  the  extravagant 
principles  of  interpretation  they  have  adopted  for  many  ages,  which  set 
all  sober  criticism  at  defiance,  render  nugatory  any  authority  which 
might  be  ascribed  to  their  denial  of  the  fulfilment  of  certain  prophecies 
in  the  sense  adopted  by  Christians.  We  may  add  to  this,  that  among 
Christian  critics  themselves  there  may  be  much  disagreement.  Ec- 
centricities and  absurdities  are  found  among  the  learned  in  every  depart- 
ment of  knowledge,  and  much  of  this  waywardness,  and  affectation  of 


180  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

singularity  has  infected  interpreters  of  Scripture.  But,  alter  all,  there 
is  a  truth  and  reason  in  every  subject  which  the  understandings  of  the 
generality  of  men  will  apprehend  and  acknowledge,  whenever  it  is  fully 
understood  and  impartially  considered;  to  this,  iu  all  such  cases,  the 
appeal  can  only  be  made,  and  here  it  may  be  made  with  confidence. 

fi.  For  want  of  a  right  apprehension  of  the  meaning  of  somewhat  an 
unfortunate  term  which  has  obtained  in  theology,  the  "  double  sense"  of 
many  prophecies,  an  objection  of  another  kind  has  been  raised,  as  though 
no  definite  meaning  could  be  assigned  to  the  prophecies  of  Scripture. 
Nothing  can  be  more  unfounded.  "The  double  sense  of  many  prophe- 
cies in  the  Old  Testament,"  says  an  able  writer,  "  has  been  made  a  pre- 
text by  ill-disposed  men,  for  representing  them  as  of  uncertain  meaning, 
and  resembling  the  ambiguity  of  the  pagan  oracles.  But  whoever  con- 
siders the  subject  with  due  attention,  will  perceive  how  little  ground 
there  is  for  such  an  accusation.  The  equivocations  of  the  heathen  ora- 
cles manifestly  arose  from  their  ignorance  of  future  events,  and  from 
their  endeavours  to  conceal  that  ignorance,  by  such  indefinite  expres- 
sions, as  might  be  equally  applicable  to  two  or  more  events  of  a  con- 
trary description.  But  the  double  sense  of  the  Scripture  prophecies,  far 
from  originating  in  any  doubt  or  uncertainty,  as  to  the  fulfilment  of  them 
in  either  sense,  springs  from  a  foreknowledge  of  their  accomplishment  in 
both ;  whence  the  prediction  is  purposely  so  framed  as  to  include  both 
events,  which,  so  far  from  being  contrary  to  each  other,  are  typical  the 
one  of  the  other,  and  are  thus  connected  together  by  a  mutual  depend- 
ency or  relation.  This  has  often  been  satisfactorily  proved,  with  respect 
to  those  prophecies  which  referred,  in  their  primary  sense,  to  the  events 
of  the  Old  Testament,  and,  in  their  farther  and  more  complex  significa- 
tion, to  those  of  the  New  :  and  on  this  double  accomplishment  of  some 
prophecies  is  grounded  our  firm  expectation  of  the  completion  of  others 
which  remain  yet  unfulfilled  in  their  secondary  sense,  but  which  we 
justly  consider  as  equally  certain  in  their  issue,  as  those  which  are 
already  past.  So  far,  then,  from  any  valid  objection  lying  against  the 
credibility  of  the  Scripture  prophecies,  from  these  seeming  ambiguities 
of  meaning,  we  may  urge  them  as  additional  proofs  of  their  coming 
from  Ood.  For,  who  but  the  Being,  who  is  infinite  in  knowledge  and  in 
counsel,  could  so  construct  predictions  as  to  give  them  a  two-fold  applica 
tion,  to  events  distant  from,  and  (to  human  foresight)  unconnected  with, 
each  other  ?  What  power  less  than  Divine  could  so  frame  them,  as  to 
make  the  accomplishment  of  them,  in  one  instance,  a  solemn  pledge  and 
assurance  of  their  completion  in  another  instance,  of  still  higher  and 
more  universal  importance  ?  Where  will  the  scoffer  find  any  thing  like 
this  in  the  artifices  of  heathen  oracles,  to  conceal  their  ignorance,  and 
to  impose  on  the  credulity  of  mankind  ?" 

We  now  proceed  to  the  enumeration  of  a  few  out  of  the  great  number 


FIRST.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  181 

of  predictions  contained  in  the  Scriptures,  which  most  unequivocally 
show  a  perfect  knowledge  of  future  contingent  events,  and  which,  there- 
fore, according  to  our  argument,  as  certainly  prove  that  they  who  utter- 
ed them  "  spake  as  they  were  moved  by  the  Holy  Ghost,"  by  the  Spirit 
of  the  omniscient  and  infinitely  prescient  God.  (8) 

The  very  first  promise  made  to  man  is  a  prediction  which  none  could 
have  uttered  but  He  whose  eye  looks  through  the  depths  of  future  ages, 
and  knows  the  result  as  well  as  the  beginning  of  all  things.  "  J  will  put 
enmity  between  thee  and  the  woman,  and  between  thy  seed  and  her  seed ;  it. 
shall  bruise  thy  head,  and  thou  shalt  bruise  his  heeV  In  vain  is  it  attempt- 
ed to  resolve  the  whole  of  the  transaction  with  which  this  prediction  stands 
connected,  into  allegory.  Such  criticism,  if  applied  to  any  other  ancient 
historical  book,  bearing  marks  of  authentic  narration  as  unequivocal  as 
the  book  of  Genesis,  would  not  be  tolerated  by  the  advocates  of  this 
absurd  conception  themselves,  whether  they  are  open  or  disguised  infi- 

(8)  *  The  correspondences  of  types  and  antitypes,  though  they  are  not  proper 
proofs  of  the  truth  of  a  doctrine,  yet  may  be  very  reasonable  confirmations  of 
the  foreknowledge  of  God ;  of  the  uniform  view  of  Providence  under  different 
dispensations  ;  of  the  analogy,  harmony,  and  agreement,  between  the  Old  Testa- 
ment and  the  New.  The  words  of  the  law  concerning  one  particular  kind  of 
death,  He  that  is  hanged  is  accursed  of  God,  can  hardly  be  conceived  to  have 
been  put  in  on  any  other  account,  than  with  a  view  and  foresight  to  the  applica- 
tion made  of  it  by  St.  Paul.  The  analogies  between  the  paschal  lamb  and  the 
Lamb  of  God  slain  from  the  foundation  of  the  world;  between  the  Egyptian  bon- 
dage and  the  tyranny  of  sin ;  between  the  baptism  of  the  Israelites  in  the  sea  and 
in  the  cloud,  and  the  baptism  of  Christians  ;  between  the  passage  through  the 
wilderness,  and  through  the  present  world;  between  Joshua  bringing  the  people 
into  the  promised  land,  and  Jesus  Christ  being  the  Captain  of  salvation  to 
believers  ;  between  the  Sabbath  of  rest  promised  to  the  people  of  God  in  the 
earthly  Canaan,  and  the  eternal  rest  promised  to  the  people  of  God  in  the  heavenly 
Canaan ;  between  the  liberty  granted  them  from  the  time  of  the  death  of  the 
high  priest,  to  him  that  had  fled  into  a  city  of  refuge,  and  the  redemption  pur- 
chased by  the  death  of  Christ;  between  the  high  priest  entering  into  the  holy  place 
every  year  with  the  blood  of  others,  and  Christ's  once  entering  with  his  own  blood 
into  heaven  itself,  to  appear  in  the  shadows-  of  things  to  come,  of  good  things  to 
come,  the  shadows  of  heavenly  things,  the  presence  of  God  for  us.  These,  I  say, 
and  innumerable  other  analogies,  between  the  figures  for  the  time  then  present, 
patterns  of  things  in  the  heavens,  and  the  heavenly  things  themselves,  cannot  with- 
out the  force  of  strong  prejudice  be  conceived  to  have  happened  by  mere  chance, 
without  any  foresight  or  design.  There  are  no  such  analogies,  much  less  such 
series  of  analogies,  found  in  the  books  of  more  enthusiastic  writers  living  in  such 
remote  ages  from  each  other.  It  is  much  more  creuioie  and  reasonable  to  sup- 
pose, what  St.  Paul  affirms,  that  these  things  were  our  examples  ;  and  that  in  that 
uniform  course  of  God's  government  of  the  world,  all  things  happened  unto  them 
of  old  for  ensamples,  and  they  are  written  for  our  admonition,  upon  whom  the  ends 
of  the  world  are  come.  And  hence  arises  that  aptness  of  similitude,  in  the  appli 
cation  of  several  legal  performances  to  the  morality  of  the  Gospel,  that  it  nan 
very  hardly  be  supposed  not  to  have  been  originally  intended."  (Da.  S.  Clarke's 
Evidences  of  Natural  and  Revealed  Religion,  p.  263.) 


182  THEOLOGICAL     INSTITUTES.  [PART 

dels.  In  vain  is  it  alleged,  that  a  mere  fact  of  natural  history  is  stated  : 
for  if  the  words  are  understood  to  express  no  more  than  the  enmity  be- 
tween the  human  race  and  serpents,  it  would  require  to  be  proved,  in 
order  to  establish  a  special  punishment  of  the  serpent,  that  man  has  a 
greater  hostility  to  serpents  than  to  other  dangerous  animals,  which  he 
extirpates  whenever  he  can  master  them  by  force  or  stratagem  ;  and  that 
serpents  have  a  stronger  disposition  to  do  injury  to  men,  than  to  those 
animals  which  they  make  their  daily  prey,  or  to  others  which  they  never 
fail  to  strike  when  within  their  reach.  As  this  was  obviously  false  in 
fact,  Moses  could  not  assert  it ;  and,  if  it  had  been  true  in  natural  his- 
.  tory,  to  have  said  this  and  nothing  more,  to  have  confined  himself  to  the 
mere  literal  fact,  a  fact  of  no  importance,  would  have  been  far  below 
the  character  of  Moses  as  a  writer — a  lofty  and  sublime  character,  to 
which  the  heathens  and  sometimes  infidels  themselves  have  done  justice. 
In  no  intelligible  sense  can  these  celebrated  words  be  understood,  but 
in  that  in  which  they  are  fixed  by  innumerable  references  and  allusions 
of  other  parts  of  the  sacred  volume,  and  which  ought,  in  all  good  criti- 
cism, to  determine  their  meaning.  The  serpent,  and  the  seed  of  the 
woman,  are  the  representatives  of  two  invisible  and  mighty  powers  ;  the 
one  good,  the  other  evil ;  the  one  Divine,  though  incarnate  of  the 
woman,  the  other  diabolic  ;  between  whom  an  enmity  was  placed,  which 
was  to  express  itself  in  a  long  and  fearful  struggle,  in  the  course  of 
which  the  seed  of  the  woman  should  sustain  a  temporary  wound  and 
suffering,  but  which  should  issue  in  the  bruising  of  the  head,  the  inflict- 
ing a  fatal  blow  upon  the  power,  of  his  adversary.  The  scene  of  this 
contest  was  to  be  our  globe,  and  generally  the  visible  agents  of  it  men, 
under  their  respective  leaders,  the  serpent  on  the  one  side,  and  the  seed 
of  the  woman  on  the  other,  practising,  and  advocating,  and  endeavour- 
ing to  render  dominant  truth  or  error,  virtue  or  vice,  obedience  to  God 
or  rebellion  against  his  authority.  We  ask  then,  has  such  a  contest  of 
principles  and  powers  taken  place  in  the  world,  or  not  ?  The  answer 
must  be  in  the  affirmative  ;  for  every  age  bears  witness  to  it.  We  see 
it  commencing  in  Cain  and  Abel — in  the  resistance  of  the  antediluvians 
to  the  righteousness  taught  by  Noah  ; — in  their  punishment ; — in  the  rise 
of  idolatry,  and  the  struggles  of  the  truth  in  opposition  to  it; — in  the 
inflictions  of  singular  judgments  upon  nations,  for  the  punishment  and 
exposure  of  idolatry,  as  in  the  plagues  of  Egypt,  the  destruction  of  the 
nations  of  Canaan,  &c.  We  trace  the  contest  throughout  the  whole 
history  of  the  Jewish  nation  down  to  the  coming  of  our  Lord  ;  and  occa- 
sionally  we  see  it  extending  into  the  neighbouring  pagan  nations,  although 
they  were  generally,  as  a  part  of  their  punishment,  "  suffered  to  walk  in 
their  own  ways"  and  Satan  as  to  them  was  permitted  to  " keep  his  goods 
in  peace"  till  the  time  of  gracious  visitation  should  arrive.  We  see 
the  incarnate  Redeemer,  for  a  time  suffering,  and  at  length  dying.    Then 


FIRST.]  THEOIX)GICAL    INSTITUTES.  183 

was  "  the  hour  and  power  of  darkness ;"  then  was  his  heel  bruised  :  but 
ne  died  only  to  revive  again,  more  visibly  and  powerfully  to  establish  his 
kingdom  and  to  commence  his  spiritual  conquests.  In  every  direction 
were  the  regions,  where  Satan  "  had  his  seat"  penetrated  by  the  hea- 
venly light  of  the  doctrine  of  Christ ;  and  every  where  the  most  tremen- 
dous persecutions  were  excited  against  its  unarmed  and  unprotected 
preachers  and  their  converts.  But  the  gates  of  hell  prevailed  not  against 
the  Church  founded  on  a  rock,  and  "  Satan  fell  as  lightning  from  hea- 
ven,"— from  the  thrones,  and  temples,  and  judgment  seats,  and  schools 
of  the  ancient  civilized  world  ;  the  idolatry  of  ages  was  renounced ; 
Christ  was  adored  through  the  vast  extent  of  the  Roman  empire,  and  in 
many  of  the  countries  beyond  even  its  ample  sweep.  Under  other 
forms  the  enemy  revived,  and  the  contest  was  renewed  ;  but  in  every 
age  it  has  been  maintained.  The  principles  of  pure  evangelical  truth 
were  never  extinguished ;  and  the  "  children  of  Hie  kingdom"  were 
" minished  and  brought  low"  only  to  render  the  renewal  of  the  assault 
by  unexpected  agents,  singularly  raised  up,  more  marked  and  more 
eminently  of  God.  We  need  not  run  over  even  the  heads  of  the  his- 
tory of  the  Church  :  what  is  the  present  state  of  things  ?  The  contest 
still  continues,  but  with  increasing  zeal  on  the  part  of  Christians,  who 
are  carrying  on  offensive  operations  against  the  most  distant  parts  of 
the  long-undisturbed  kingdom  of  darkness;  placing  there  the  principles 
of  truth ;  commencing  war  upon  idolatry  and  superstition ;  and  esta- 
blishing the  institutions  of  the  Christian  Church  with  a  success  which 
warrants  the  hope  that  the  time  is  not  far  distant,  when  the  "  head  of 
the  serpent  will  he  bruised"  in  all  idolatrous  countries,  and  the  idols  of 
modern  heathen  states,  like  those  of  old,  be  displaced,  to  introduce  the 
worship  of  the  universal  Saviour,  "  God  over  all,  blessed  for  ever." 

May  we  not  ask,  whether  all  this  was  not  infinitely  above  human 
foresight  ?  Who  could  confidently  state  that  a  contest  of  this  peculiar 
nature  would  continue  through  successive  ages ;  that  men  would  not  all 
go  over  to  one  or  other  of  the  opposing  parties ;  nay,  who  could  confi- 
dently conjecture  in  the  age  of  Moses,  (when  the  tendency  to  idolatry  had 
become  so  strong,  that  the  chosen  seed  themselves,  under  the  constant 
demonstration  of  miracles,  visibly  blessed  while  they  remained  faithful 
to  the  worship  of  God,  and  as  eminently  and  visibly  punished  when  they 
departed  from  it,  could  not  be  preserved  from  the  infection,)  that  idolatry 
should  one  day  be  abolished  throughout  the  earth  ?  Past  experience  and 
all  probabilities  were  opposed  to  the  hope  that  the  cause  of  the  seed  of 
the  woman  should  prevail,  and  yet  it  stands  recorded,  "it  [rather  He,] 
shall  bruise  thy  Jiead."  Infidels  may  scoff  at  a  Redeemer,  and  deride 
die  notion  of  a  tempter ;  but  they  cannot  deny  that  such  a  contest 
between  opposite  parties  and  principles  as  is  here  foretold  has  actual!} 
taken  place,  and  still  continues ;  that  contest,  so  extended,  so  continued,  and 


184  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

so  terminated,  human  foresight  could  not  foretell ;  and  the  fact  established, 
therefore,  is  an  accomplishment  of  a  prophecy,  which  could  originate 
only  in  Divine  prescience. 

The  celebrated  prediction  of  Jacob  at  the  close  of  his  life  respecting 
the  time  of  the  appearing  of  "  Siiiloh,"  may  next  be  considered. 

The  word  signifies,  "  He  who  is  to  be  sent,"  or  "  The  Peace-maker' 
In  either  sense,  the  application  to  that  great  Person,  to  whom  all  the 
patriarchs  looked  forward,  and  the  prophets  gave  witness,  is  obvious. 
Those  who  doubt  this,  are  bound  to  give  us  a  better  interpretation. 
— Before  a  certain  event,  a  certain  person  was  to  come,  to  whom  the 
people  should  be  gathered.  The  event  has  certainly  arrived,  but  who 
is  the  person  ?  The  application  of  the  prophecy  to  Messiah  is  not  an 
invention  of  Christians.  The  ancient  Jews,  as  appears  from  their  com 
mentators,  so  understood  it :  and  the  modern  ones  are  unable  to  resist 
the  evidence  drawn  from  it,  in  favour  of  the  claims  of  our  Lord.  That 
it  is  a  prediction,  is  proved  from  its  form,  and  the  circumstances  under 
which  it  was  delivered ;  that  it  has  received  a  singular  accomplishment 
in  the  person  of  Jesus  of  Nazareth,  is  also  certain  ;  and  it  is  equally  cer- 
tain, that  no  individual  beside  can  be  produced,  in  whom  it  has  been  in 
any  sense  whatever  accomplished.  For  the  ample  illustration  of  the 
prophecy  the  reader  is  referred  to  commentators,  and  to  Bishop  Newton's 
well-known  work  on  the  prophecies.  It  is  sufficient  here  to  allege,  that 
Judah,  as  a  tribe,  remained  till  after  the  advent  of  Jesus  Christ,  which 
cannot  be  said  of  the  long-dispersed  ten  tribes,  and  scarcely  of  Benjamin, 
which  was  merged  in  the  tribe  of  Judah. — Chubb  asks  where  the  supre- 
macy of  Judah  was.  when  Nebuchadnezzar  carried  the  whole  nation 
captive  to  Babylon ;  when  Alexander  subdued  Palestine ;  and  when  it 
was  a  tributary  province  to  the  Roman  empire  ?  The  prediction,  how- 
ever, does  rot  convey  the  idea  either  of  independent  or  supreme  power. 
This  no  '"tie  tribe  had  when  all  were  united  in  one  state,  and  each  had 
its  scr-ptre  and  its  princes  or  chiefs.  It  is  therefore  enough  to  show,  that 
under  all  its  various  fortunes,  the  tribe  of  Judah  retained  its  ensigns,  and 
its  chiefs,  and  its  iribeship,  until  Shiloh  came.  It  is  no  uncommon 
thing  for  a  country  to  be  conquered,  and  for  its  ancient  princes  and 
government  to  remain,  though  as  tributary. 

With  respect  to  the  tribe  of  Judah  during  the  captivity  in  Babylon, 
Cyrus,  as  we  learn  from  Ezra  i,  8,  ordered  the  vessels  of  the  temple  to 
be  restored  to  "  the  prince  of  Judah."  This  shows  that  the  tribe  was 
kept  distinct,  and  that  it  had  its  own  internal  government  and  chief. 
Under  the  dominion  of  the  Asmonean  kings,  the  Jews  had  their  rulers,  their 
elders,  and  their  council,  and  so  under  the  Romans.  But  soon  after  the 
death  of  Christ,  all  this  was  abolished,  the  nation  dispersed,  and  the 
tribes  utterly  confounded.  Till  our  Lord  came,  and  had  accomplishea 
his  work  on  earth,  the  tribe  of  Judah  continued.     This  is  matter  of  unques- 


FIKST.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  185 

tionable  historic  fact.  In  a  short  time  afterward  it  was  dispersed  and 
mingled  with  the  common  mass  of  Jews  of  all  tribes  and  countries  :  this 
is  equally  unquestionable.  Now  again  we  ask,  could  either  human  fore- 
sight determine  this,  or  is  the  application  of  the  event  to  the  prophecy" 
fanciful  ?  The  prediction  was  uttered  in  the  very  infancy  of  the  -state  of 
Israel,  by  the  father  of  the  fathers  of  the  tribes  of  that  people.  Ages 
p;issed  away;  the  mightiest  empires  were  annihilated  ;  ten  of  the  chosen 
tribes  themselves  were  utterly  dispersed  into  unknown  countries  ;  ano- 
ther became  so  insignificant  as  to  lose  its  designation  ;  one  only  remained 
which  imposed  its  very  name  upon  the  nation  at  large,  the  object  of  public 
observation  until  the  Messiah  came,  and  that  tribe  was  Judah,  the  tribe 
spoken  of  in  the  prediction,  and  it  remained  as  it  were  only  to  make  the 
fulfilment  manifest,  and  was  then  confounded  with  the  relics  of  the  rest. 
What  prescience  of  countless  contingencies,  occurring  in  the  intervening 
ages,  does  this  imply? — A  prescience  truly,  which  can  only  belong 
to  God. 

The  predictions  respecting  the  Jewish  nation,  commencing  with  those 
of  Moses,  and  running  through  all  their  prophets,  are  too  numerous  to 
be  adduced.  One  of  the  most  instructive  and  convincing  exercises  to 
those  who  have  any  doubt  of  the  inspiration  of  the  Scriptures,  would  be, 
seriously  and  candidly  to  peruse  them,  and  by  the  aid  of  those  authors 
who  have  expressly  and  largely  written  on  this  subject,  to  compare  the 
prophecies  with  their  alleged  fulfilment.  Three  topics  are  prominent  in 
the  predictions  of  Moses  and  the  prophets  generally, — the  frequent  and 
gross  departures  of  the  Jews  from  their  own  law  ;  their  signal  punish- 
ment in  invasions,  captivities,  dispersions,  oppressions,  and  persecutions  ; 
and  thei/  final  restoration  to  their  own  land.  All  these  have  taken  place. 
Even  the  last  was  accomplished  by  the  return  from  Babylon,  though,  in 
its  eminent  sense,  it  is  still  future.  In  pursuance  of  the  argument,  we 
shall  show,  that  each  of  these  was  above  human  foresight  and  con- 
jecture. 

The  apostacies  and  idolatries  of  this  people  were  foretold  by  Moses 
before  his  death.  "  /  know  that  after  my  death  ye  will  utterly  corrupt 
yourselves,  and  turn  aside  from  the  way  which  I  have  commanded  you,  and 
evil  will  befall  you  in  the  latter  days,"  Deut.  xxxi,  29 ;  and  he  accord- 
ingly prophetically  declares  their  punishment.  It  is,  perhaps,  scarcely 
possible  to  fix  upon  a  stronger  circumstance  than  this  prediction,  to  prove 
that  Moses  was  truly  commissioned  by  God,  and  did  not  pretend  a 
Divine  sanction  in  order  to  give  weight  to  his  laws  and  to  his  personal 
authority.  The  rebellious  race  whom  he  had  first  led  into  the  desert, 
had  died  there ;  and  the  new  generation  was  much  more  disposed  to 
obey  their  leader.  At  the  moment  he  wrote  these  words,  appearances 
had  a  favourable  aspect  on  the  future  obedience  of  the  people.  If  ^his 
had  not  been  the  case,  the  last  thought  a  merely  political  man  would 


# 


186  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

have  been  disposed  to  indulge  was,  that  his  own  favourite  institutions 
should  fall  into  desuetude  and  contempt ;  and  much  less  would  he  finish 
his  public  life  by  openly  telling  the  people  that  he  foresaw  that  event, 
even  if  he  feared  it.  It  may,  indeed,  be  said,  that  he  uttered  this  con- 
viction for  the  purpose  of  giving  a  colour  to  the  threatenings  which  he 
pronounces  against  disobedience  to  his  law,  and  that  the  object  of  those 
fearful  menaces  was  to  deter  the  people  from  departing  from  customs 
and  rules  which  he  was  anxious,  for  the  sake  of  his  own  fame,  that  they 
should  observe.  To  this  we  answer,  that  Moses  could  not  expect  any 
weight  to  be  attached  by  the  Israelites  to  his  threat,  that  the  Divine 
judgments  would  be  inflicted  upon  them  for  not  obeying  his  laws,  unless 
their  former  rebellions  had  been  immediately  and  signally  marked  by 
such  visitations.  Without  this  to  support  him,  he  would  have  appeared 
in  a  ridiculous,  rather  than  in  an  impressive  and  sublime  attitude  before 
the  people  assembled  to  hear  his  last  commands.  For  forty  years  his 
institutions  had  been  often  disobeyed,  and  if  no  inflictions  of  the  Divine 
displeasure  followed,  what  reason  had  they  to  credit  the  menaces  of 
Moses  as  to  the  future  ?  But  if  such  inflictions  had  resulted  from  their 
disobedience,  every  thing  is  rational  and  consistent  in  this  part  of  the 
conduct  of  their  leader.  Let  the  infidel  choose  which  of  these  positions 
he  pleases.  If  he  think  that  Moses  aimed  to  deter  them  from  departing 
from  his  institutions  by  empty  threats,  he  ascribes  an  incredible  ab- 
surdity to  an  unquestionably  wise,  and,  as  infidels  themselves  contend,  a 
very  politic  man  ;  but  if  his  predictive  threats  were  grounded  upon  for- 
mer marked  and  acknowledged  interpositions  of  Divine  Providence,  the 
only  circumstance  which  could  give  them  weight,  he  was  God's  com- 
missioned leader,  and,  as  he  professed,  an  inspired  prophet. 

It  is  a  circumstance  of  great  weight  in  the  predictions  of  Moses 
respecting  the  punishment  of  the  Jews,  that  these  famines,  pestilences, 
invasions,  subjugations  to  foreign  enemies,  captivities,  &c,  are  represented 
solely  as  the  consequences  of  their  vicious  departures  from  God,  and 
from  his  laws.  Now,  who  could  foresee,  except  an  inspired  man,  that 
such  evils  would  in  no  instance  take  place, — that  no  famine,  no  blight,  no 
invasion  would  occur  in  Judea,  except  in  obvious  punishment  of  their 
offences  against  their  law?  What  was  there  in  the  common  course  of 
things  to  prevent  a  small  state,  though  observant  of  the  precepts  of  its 
own  religion,  from  falling  under  the  dominion  of  more  powerful  neigh- 
bouring nations,  except  the  special  protection  of  God  ?  and  what  but  this 
could  guard  them  from  the  plagues  and  famines  to  which  their  neigh- 
bours were  liable  ?  If  the  predictions  of  Moses  were  not  inspired,  they 
assume  a  principle  which  mere  human  wisdom  and  policy  never  takes 
into  its  calculations, — that  of  the  connection  of  the  national  prosperity  of 
a  people,  inseparably  and  infallibly,  with  obedience  to  their  holy  writings  ; 
and  because  they  assume  that  singular  principle,  the  conclusion  is  in 


FIRST.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  187 

favour  of  their  inspiration.  For  let  us  turn  to  the  facts  of  the  case. 
The  sacred  books  of  the  Jews  are  historical  as  well  as  prophetic.  The 
history  too  is  distinct  from  the  prophecy  ;  it  is  often  written  by  other 
authors ;  and  there  is  no  mark  at  all  of  any  designed  accommodation  of 
the  one  to  the  other.  The  singular  simplicity  of  the  historic  narrative 
disproves  this,  as  well  as  the  circumstance,  that  a  great  part  of  it  as 
recorded  in  the  Old  Testament  is  a  transcript  of  their  public  records. 
Consult  then  this  history,  and  in  every  instance  of  singular  calamity  we 
see  a  previous  departure  from  the  law  of  Moses  ;  the  one  following  the 
other,  almost  with  the  regularity  and  certainty  of  natural  effects  and 
causes !  In  this  the  predictions  of  Moses  and  the  prophets  are  strikingly 
accomplished  ;  and  a  more  than  human  foresight  is  proved. 

Let  us  look  farther  into  the  detail  of  these  threatened  punishments. 
Beside  the  ordinary  inflictions  of  failing  harvests,  and  severe  diseases, 
in  their  own  country,  they  were,  according  to  the  prophecies  of  Moses, 
Deut.  xxviii,  to  be  "  scattered  among  all  people,  from  the  one  end  of  the 
earth  even  to  the  other ,-"  and  where  is  the  trading  nation  in  which  they 
are  not,  in  Asia,  Africa,  and  Europe  ?  Many  are  even  to  be  found  in 
the  West  Indies,  and  in  the  commercial  parts  of  America.  Who  could 
foresee  this  but  God  ;  especially  when  their  singular  preservation  as  a 
distinct  people,  a  solitary  instance  in  the  history  of  nations,  is  also  im- 
plied ?  (9)  They  were  to  find  "  no  ease"  among  these  nations ;  and  the 
almost  constant  and  long-continued  persecutions,  robberies,  and  murder 
of  Jews,  not  only  in  ancient  nations,  but  especially  among  Christian 
nations  of  the  middle  ages,  and  in  the  Mohammedan  states  to  this  day, 
are  in  wonderful  accomplishment  of  this.  They  were  to  be  "  a  proverb 
and  a  bye-word  among  all  nations,''''  which  has  been  in  every  place  ful- 
filled, but  was  surely  above  human  intelligence  to  foresee;  and  "the 
stranger  that  is  within  tJiee  shall  get  above  thee  very  high,  and  thou  shalt 
come,  very  low."  For  a  comment  on  this,  let  the  conduct  of  the  "  stran- 
ger," Turks  and  others,  who  inhabit  Palestine,  toward  the  Jews  who 
remain  there,  be  recollected, — the  one  party  is  indeed  "  very  high,"  and 
he  other  "very  low."  Other  parts  of  this  singular  chapter  present 
equally  striking  predictions,  uttered  more  than  three  thousand  years 
ago,  as  remarkably  accomplished ;  but  there  are  some  passages  in  it, 
which  refer  in  terms  so  particular  to  a  then  distant  event,  the  utter  sub- 
version of  their  polity  and  nation  by  the  Romans,  as  to  demonstrate  in 

(9)  "  They  have  been  dispersed  among  all  countries.  They  have  no  common 
tie  of  locality  or  government  to  keep  them  together.  All  the  ordinary  principles 
of  assimilation,  which  make  law,  and  religion,  and  manners,  so  much  a  mattei 
of  geography,  are  in  their  instance  suspended.  And  in  exception  to  every  thing 
which  history  has  recorded  of  the  revolutions  of  the  species,  we  see  in  this  won- 
derful race  a  vigorous  principle  of  identity,  which  has  remained  in  undiminished 
force  for  nearly  two  thousand  years,  and  still  pervades  every  shred  and  fragment 
of  their  widely  scattered  population  "  (Chalmers's  Evidtncea.) 


* 


188  THEOIA>GICAL    INSTITUTES.  [l*ART 

the  most  unequivocal  manner  the  prescience  of  Him  to  whom  all  events, 
the  most  contingent,  minute,  and  distant,  are  known  with  absolute  cer- 
tainty. That  the  Romans  are  intended,  in  verse  49,  by  the  nation  brought 
from  "  the  end  of  the  earth,''''  distinguished  by  their  well-known  ensign 
the  eagle"  and  by  their  fierce  and  cruel  disposition,  is  exceedingly 
probable :  and  it  is  remarkable,  that  the  account  which  Moses  gives  of 
the  horrors  of  the  "  siege"  of  which  he  speaks,  is  exactly  paralleled  by 
those  well  known  passages  in  Josephus,  in  which  he  describes  the  siege 
of  Jerusalem  by  the  Roman  army.  The  last  verse  of  the  chapter  seems 
indeed  to  fix  the  reference  of  the  foregoing  passages  to  the  final  destruc- 
tion of  the  nation  by  the  Romans,  and  at  the  same  time  contains  a  pre- 
diction, the  accomplishment  of  which  cannot  possibly  be  ascribed  to 
accident.  "  And  the  Lord  shall  bring  thee  into  Egypt  again  with  ships, 
by  the  way  whereof  I  spake  unto  thee,  Thou  shalt  see  it  no  more  again  : 
and  there  ye  shall  be  sold  unto  your  ememiesfor  bondmen  and  bondwomen, 
and  no  man  shall  buy  you."  On  this  Dr.  Hales  remarks,  on  the  autho- 
rity of  their  own  national  historian,  Josephus,  "Of  the  captives  taken  at 
the  siege  of  Jerusalem,  above  seventeen  years  of  age,  some  were  sent 
to  Egypt  in  chains,  the  greater  part  were  distributed  through  the  pro- 
vinces to  be  destroyed  in  the  theatres,  by  the  sword,  and  by  wild  beasts  ; 
the  rest  under  seventeen  were  sold  for  slaves,  and  that  for  a  trifling  sum, 
on  account  of  the  numbers  to  be  sold,  and  the  scarcity  of  buyers :  so 
that  at  length  the  prophecy  of  Moses  was  fulfilled — '  and  no  man  shall 
buy.''  The  part  that  were  reserved  to  grace  the  triumph  of  Vespasian, 
were  probably  transported  to  Italy  in  '  ships'  or  by  sea,  to  avoid  a  pro 
digious  land  journey  thither  through  Asia  and  Greece, — a  circumstance 
which  distinguished  this  invasion  and  captivity  from  the  preceding  by 
the  Assyrians  and  Babylonians.  In  the  ensuing  rebellion,  a  part  of  the 
captives  were  sent  by  sea  to  Egypt,  and  several  of  the  ships  were  wrecked 
on  the  coast." 

Thus,  at  a  distance  of  fifteen  centuries,  were  these  contingent  circum- 
stances accurately  recorded  by  the  prophetic  spirit  of  Moses — the  tak- 
ing of  innumerable  Jews  captive — their  transport  to  Egypt — their  being 
sold  till  the  markets  for  slaves  were  glutted,  and  no  more  buyers  were 
found,  and  embarked  on  board  vessels,  either  to  grace  the  triumph  of 
their  conqueror,  or  to  find  a  market  in  different  maritime  ports.  Is  ii 
possible  that  these  numerous  and  minute  circumstances  can  be  referred 
to  either  happy  conjectures  or  human  foresight  ? 

But  Moses  and  other  prophets  agree,  that,  after  all  their  captivities 
j.nd  dispersions,  the  Jews  shall  be  again  restored  to  their  own  land. 
This  was,  as  we  have  said,  in  one  instance  accomplished  in  their  restor- 
ation by  Cyrus  and  his  successors  ;  after  which  they  again  became  a 
considerable  state.  But  who  could  foretell  that,  but  He  who  determines 
the  events  of  the  world  by  his  power  and  wisdom?     Jeremiah  fixes  the 


FIRST.]  THEOfcOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  189 

duration  ot  the  captivity  to  seventy  years  ;  he  did  that  so  unequivocally, 
that  the  Je>vs  in  Babylon,  when  the  time  approached,  began  to  prepare 
for  the  event.  But  there  was  nothing  in  the  circumstances  of  the  Baby. 
Ionian  empire  when  the  prediction  was  uttered,  to  warrant  the  hope, 
much  less  to  support  a  confident  conjecture.  Could  the  subversion  of 
that  powerful  empire  by  a  then  obscure  people,  the  circumstance  which 
broke  the  bondage  of  the  Jews,  have  been  foreseen  by  man  ?  or  when 
we  consider  the  event  as  fulfilling  so  distinct  a  prophecy,  can  it  be  re- 
solved  into  imaginative  interpretation  ?  A  future  restoration  however 
awaits  this  people,  and  will  be  to  the  world  a  glorious  demonstration  of 
the  truth  of  prophecy.  This  being  future,  we  cannot  argue  upon  it. 
Three  things  are  however  certain : — the  Jews  themselves  expect  it ; 
they  are  preserved  by  the  providence  of  God  a  distinct  people  for  theii 
country ;  and  their  country,  which  in  fact  is  possessed  by  no  one,  is  pre. 
served  for  them. 

Without  noticing  numerous  prophecies  respecting  ancient  nations  and 
cities,  (1)  the  wonderful  and  exact  accomplishment  of  which  has  been 
pointed  out  by  various  writers,  and  which  afford  numerous  eminent  in- 
stances  of  the  prescience  of  contingent  and  improbable  events,  whose 

(1)  No  work  has  exhibited  in  so  pleasing  and  comprehensive  a  manner  the  ful- 
filment of  the  leading  prophecies  of  Scripture,  and  especially  of  the  Old  Testament, 
as  Bishop  Newton's  Dissertations  on  the  Prophecies ;  and  the  perusal  of  it  may 
be  earnestly  recommended,  especially  to  the  young.  His  illustrations  of  the  pro- 
phecics  respecting  ancient  Babylon  are  exceedingly  interesting  and  satisfactory 
and  still  farther  proofs  of  the  wonderfully  exact  accomplishment  of  thoso  prophe 
cies  may  be  seen  in  a  highly  interesting  Memoir  on  the  Ruins  of  Babylon,  by 
Claudius  J.  Rich,  published  in  1815.  Immense  ruins  were  visited  by  him  near 
the  supposed  site  of  ancient  Babylon,  which  probably  are,  though  the  matter  can- 
not  be  certainly  ascertained,  the  remains  of  that  astonishing  city,  now  indeed 
"  swept  with  the  besom  of  destruction."  He  tells  us  too,  that  the  neighbourhood 
is  to  the  present  a  habitation  only  for  birds  and  beasts  of  prey ;  that  the  dens  of 
lions,  with  their  slaughtered  victims,  are  to  be  seen  in  many  places ;  and  that 
most  of  the  cavities  are  occupied  with  bats  and  owls.  It  is  therefore  impossible 
to  reflect  without  awe  upon  the  passage  of  Isaiah,  written  during  the  prosperity 
of  Babylon,  wherein  he  says,  "  The  wild  beasts  of  the  desert  shall  lie  there,  and 
their  houses  shall  be  full  of  doleful  creatures,  and  owls  shall  dwell  there,  and 
satyrs  shall  dance  there."  The  present  ruins  of  that  city  also  demonstrate,  that 
the  course  of  the  Euphrates  has  been  changed,  probably  in  consequence  of  the 
channel  formed  by  Cyrus ;  and  the  yielding  nature  of  the  soil  demonstrates  that 
such  an  operation  could  have  been  performed  by  a  large  army  with  great  facility 
and  despatch. 

The  ruins  examined  by  Mr.  Rich  bear  testimony  to  the  immense  extent  of  the 
city  as  described  by  ancient  authors.  Vast  masses  of  masonry,  of  both  burnt  and 
unburnt  brick  and  bitumen,  were  observed  in  various  excavations  in  these  huge 
mountains  of  ruins,  which  are  separated  from  each  other  by  several  miles.  One 
is  called  by  the  Arabs,  Birs  Nimrond  ;  another  the  Kasr,  or  Palace  ;  and  a  third, 
which  some  have  thought  to  be  the  ruins  of  the  tower  of  Belus,  is  called  by  the 
natives  Mngelib?,  overturned,  which  expressive  term  is  also  sometimes  applied 
to  the  mounds  of  the  Kasr. 


» 


190  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

evidence  is  so  overwhelming,  that,  as  in  the  case  of  the  illustrious  pro- 
phecies of  Daniel,  unbelievers  have  been  obliged  to  resort  to  the  subter- 
fuge of  asserting,  in  opposition  to  the  most  direct  proofs,  that  the  pro- 
phecies were  written  after  the  events,  we  shall  close  our  instances  by 
adverting  to  the  prophecies  respecting  the  Messiah, — the  great  end 
and"  object  of  the  prophetic  dispensation.  Of  these  not  a  solitary  in- 
stance, or  two,  of  an  equivocal  kind,  and  expressed  only  in  figurative  or 
symbolic  language,  are  to  be  adduced  ;  but  upward  of  one  hundred  pre- 
dictions, generally  of  very  clear  and  explicit  meaning,  and  each  referring 
to  some  different  circumstance  connected  with  the  appearing  of  Christ, 
his  person,  history,  and  his  ministry,  have  been  selected  by  divines, 
exclusive  of  typical  and  allusive  predictions,  (2)  and  those  which  in  an 
ultimate  and  remote  sense  are  believed  to  terminate  in  him.  How  are 
all  these  to  be  disposed  of,  if  the  inspiration  of  the  Scriptures  which  con- 
tain them  be  denied  ?  That  these  predictions  are  in  books  written  many 
ages  before  the  birth  of  our  Saviour,  is  certain — the  testimony  of  the 
Jews  who  reject  Christ,  amply  proves  this.  That  no  interpolations  have 
taken  place  to  accommodate  them  to  him,  is  proved,  by  the  same  predic- 
tions being  found  in  the  copies  which  are  in  the  hands  of  the  Jews,  and 
which  have  descended  to  them  from  before  the  Christian  era.  On  the 
other  hand,  the  history  of  Jesus  answers  to  these  predictions,  and  exhi- 
bits their  exact  accomplishment.  The  Messiah  was  to  be  of  the  seed 
of  David — born  in  Bethlehem — born  of  a  virgin — an  incarnation  of 
Deity,  God  wilhus, — an  eminent  but  unsuccessful  teacher  ; — he  was  to 
open  the  eyes  of  the  blind,  heal  the  lame  and  sick,  and  raise  the  dead — 
he  was  to  be  despised  and  rejected  by  his  own  countrymen ;  to  be  ar- 
raigned on  false  charges,  denied  justice,  and  condemned  to  a  violent 
death — he  was  to  rise  from  the  dead,  ascend  to  the  right  hand  of  God, 
and  there  being  invested  with  power  and  authority,  he  was  to  punish  his 
enemies,  and  establish  his  own  spiritual  kingdom,  which  shall  never  end. 
We  do  not  enter  into  more  minute  predictions,  for  the  argument  is  irre- 
sistible when  founded  on  these  alone  :  and  we  may  assert  that  no  man, 
or  number  of  men,  could  possibly  have  made  such  conjectures.  Con- 
sidered in  themselves,  this  is  impossible.  What  rational  man,  or  number 
of  rational  men,  could  now  be  found  to  hazard  a  conjecture  that  an  in- 
carnation of  Deity  would  occur  in  any  given  place  and  time — that  this 
Divine  Person  should  teach  wisdom,  work  miracles,  be  unjustly  put  to 
death,  rise  again,  and  establish  his  religion  ?  These  are  thoughts  which 
never  enter  into  the  minds  of  men,  because  they  are  suggested  by  no 
experience,  and  by  no  probability  arising  out  of  the  visual  course  of  hu- 
man affairs ;  and  yet  if  the  prophets  were  not  inspired,  it  would  have 
been  as  impossible  for  them  to  have  conceived  such  expectations,  as  for 
us  ;  and  indeed  much  more  so,  seeing  we  are  now  familiar  with  a  reli- 
(2)   See  note,  p.  181 


FIRST.  J  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  191 

gioii  which  asserts  that  such  events  have  once  occurred.  If  then  such 
events  lay  beyond  not  only  human  foresight,  but  even  human  thought, 
they  can  only  be  referred  to  inspiration.  But  the  case  does  not  close 
here.  How  shall  we  account,  in  the  next  place,  for  these  circumstances 
all  having  met,  strange  as  they  are,  in  one  person,  and  in  one  only 
among  all  the  millions  of  men  who  have  been  born  of  woman, — and  that 
person  Jesus  of  Nazareth  ?  He  was  of  the  house  and  lineage  of  David 
— he  was  born,  and  that  by  a  singular  event,  in  Bethlehem — he  professed 
to  be  "  God  with  us"  and  wrought  miracles  to  substantiate  his  claim. 
At  his  word  or  touch,  the  " eyes  of  the  blind  were  opened"  "  the  lame 
leaped  as  a  hart"  the  dumb  spake,  the  sick  were  healed,  and  the  dead 
lived,  as  the  prophets  had  foretold.  Of  the  wisdom  of  his  teaching,  his 
recorded  discourses  bear  witness.  His  rejection  and  unjust  death  by  his 
countrymen,  are  matters  of  historic  fact ;  his  resurrection  and  ascension 
stand  upon  the  lofty  evidences  which  have  been  already  adduced :  the 
destruction  of  the  Jewish  nation,  according  to  his  own  predictions,  fol- 
lowed as  the  proof  of  the  terror  of  his  offended  majesty  ;  and  his  "  king, 
dom"  among  men  continues  to  this  day.  There  is  no  possible  means  of 
evading  the  evidence  of  the  fulfilment  of  these  predictions  in  the  person 
of  our  Lord,  unless  it  could  be  shown  that  Jesus  and  his  disciples,  by 
some  kind  of  concert,  made  the  events  of  his  life  and  death  to  corres- 
pond with  the  prophecies,  in  order  to  substantiate  his  claim  to  the  Mes- 
siahship.  No  infidel  has  ever  been  so  absurd  as  to  hazard  this  opinion, 
except  Lord  Bolinbroke  ;  and  his  observations  may  be  taken  as  a  most 
triumphant  proof  of  the  force  of  this  evidence  from  prophecy,  when  an 
hypothesis  so  extravagant  was  resorted  to  by  an  acute  mind,  in  order  to 
evade  it.  This  noble  writer  asserts,  that  Jesus  Christ  brought  on  his 
own  death  by  a  series  of  wilful  and  preconcerted  measures,  merely  to 
give  his  disciples  the  triumph  of  an  appeal  to  the  old  prophecies !  But 
i  his  hypotheses  does  not  reach  the  case  ;  and  to  have  succeeded,  he 
eight  to  have  shown,  that  our  Lord  preconcerted  his  descent  from 
David — his  being  born  of  a  virgin — his  birth  at  Bethlehem — and  his 
wonderful  endowments  of  eloquence  and  wisdom :  that  by  some  means 
or  other  he  wilfully  made  the  Jews  ungrateful  to  him  who  healed  their 
sick  and  cleansed  their  lepers ;  and  that  he  not  only  contrived  his  own 
death,  but  his  resurrection,  and  his  ascension  also,  and  the  spread  of  his 
religion  in  opposition  to  human  opinion  and  human  power,  in  order  to 
give  his  disciples  the  triumph  of  an  appeal  to  the  prophecies !  These 
subterf  iges  of  infidels  concede  the  point,  and  show  that  the  truth  cannot 
be  denied  but  by  doing  the  utmost  violence  to  the  understanding. 

That  wonderful  series  of  particular  prophecies  respecting  our  Lord, 
containeu  1»  Isaiah  liii,  will  illustrate  the  foregoing  observations,  and 
may  property  r'.c.se  this  chapter. 

To  this  prophecy  it  cannot  be  objected,  that  its  language  is  symbolic, 


Vv 


192  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  IPA.RT 

or  that  in  more  than  a  few  beautiful  metaphors,  easily  understood,  it  \a 
even  figurative  :  its  style  is  that  of  narrative  ;  it  is  also  entire  in  itself, 
and  unmixed  with  any  other  subject;  and  it  evidently  refers  to  one 
single  person.  So  the  ancient  Jews  understood  it,  and  applied  it  to 
Messiah ;  and  though  the  modern  Jews,  in  order  to  evade  its  force  in 
the  argument  with  Christians,  allege  that  it  describes  the  sufferings  of 
their  nation,  and  not  of  an  individual,  the  objection  is  refuted  by  the 
terms  of  the  prophecy  itself.  The  Jewish  people  cannot  be  the  sufferer, 
because  he  was  to  bear  their  griefs,  to  carry  their  sorrows,  and  to  be 
wounded  for  their  transgressions.  "  He  hath  borne  our  griefs  and  car- 
ried ouk  sorrows,"  &c ;  so  that  the  person  of  the  sufferer  is  clearly 
distinguished  from  the  Jewish  nation.  Beside  which,  his  death  and 
burial  are  spoken  of,  and  his  sufferings  are  represented  (verse  12)  as 
voluntary  ;  which  in  no  sense  can  apply  to  the  Jews.  "  Of  himself,  or 
of  some  other  man,"  therefore,  as  the  Ethiopian  eunuch  rightly  conceived, 
the  prophet  must  have  spoken.  To  some  individual  it  must  be  applied  ; 
to  none  but  to  our  Lord  can  it  be  applied  ;  and  applied  to  him,  the  pro- 
phecy  is  converted  into  history  itself.  The  prophet  declares,  that  his 
advent  and  works  would  be  a  revealing  of  "  the  arm  of  the  Lord," — a 
singular  display  of  Divine  power  and  goodness ;  and  yet,  that  a  blind 
and  incredulous  people  would  not  believe  "  the  report."  Appearing  in 
a  low  and  humble  condition,  and  not,  as  they  expected  their  Messiah, 
in  the  pomp  of  eastern  monarchy,  his  want  of  "  comeliness"  and  "  desi- 
rableness" in  the  eyes  of  his  countrymen,  and  his  rejection  by  them,  are 
explicitly  stated — "  He  was  despised,  and  we  esteemed  him  not."  He  is 
farther  described  as  "  a  man  of  sorrows  and  acquainted  with  griefs ;" 
yet  his  sufferings  were  considered  by  the  Jews  as  judicial, — a  legal 
punishment,  as  they  contend  to  this  day,  for  his  endeavouring  to  seduce 
men  from  the  law,  and  for  which  they  had  the  warrant  of  God  himself 
in  his  commands  by  Moses,  that  such  seducers  should  be  put  to  death. 
With  what  exactness  are  these  sentiments  of  the  Jews  marked  in  the 
prophecy  !  We  quote  from  the  translation  of  Bishop  Lowth. 
"  Yet  we  thought  him  judcially  stricken, 
Smitten  of  God,  and  afflicted." 
Christ  himself  and  his  apostles  uniformly  represented  his  death  as  vica- 
rious and  propitiatory ;  and  this  is  predicted  and  confirmed,  so  to  speak, 
by  the  evidence  of  this  prophecy. 

"  But  he  was  wounded  for  our  transgressions, 
He  was  smitten  for  our  iniquities; 

The  chastisement  by  which  our  peace  is  effected,  was  laid  upon  him  ; 
And  by  his  bruises  we  are  healed. 
We  all  of  us  like  sheep  have  stray'd ; 
We  have  turn'd  aside,  every  one  to  his  own  way ; 
And  Jehovah  hath  made  to  light  upon  him  the  iniquity  of  ua  all. 
It  toas  exacted  and  he  was  made  answerable." 


FIBST.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  103 

Who  can  read  the  next  passage  without  thinking  of  Jesus  before  the 
council  of  the  Jews,  and  the  judgment  seat  of  Pilate  ? 

"  As  a  lamb  that  is  led  to  the  slaugrilor, 
And  as  a  sheep  before  her  shearers 
Is  dumb ;  so  he  opened  not  his  mouth. 
By  an  oppressive  judgment  he  was  taken  off." 

The  very  circumstances  of  his  burial  are  given  : — 

"  And  his  grave  was  appointed  with  the  wicked 
But  with  the  rich  man  was  his  tomb." 

Yet,  though  thus  laid  in  the  grave,  the  eye  of  the  prophet  beholds  hie 
resurrection,  "  the  joy  set  before  Aim,"  and  into  which  he  entered ;  the 
distribution  of  spiritual  blessings  to  his  people,  and  his  spiritual  conquest 
of  the  nations  of  the  earth,  notwithstanding  the  opposition  of  "the 
mighty  ;"  and  he  enumerates  these  particulars  with  a  plainness  so  won-, 
derful,  that,  by  merely  an  alteration  of  the  tenses  of  the  verbs,  the  whole 
might  be  converted  into  an  abridged  view  of  what  has  occurred,  and  is 
now  occurring  under  the  Christian  dispensation,  in  the  furtherance  of 
human  salvation : — 

•'  If  his  soul  shall  make  a  propitiatory  sacrifice 
He  shall  see  a  seed,  which  shall  prolong  their  days, 
And  the  gracious  purpose  of  Jehovah  shall  prosper  in  his  hands. 
Of  the  travail  of  his  soul  he  shall  see  (the  fruit)  and  be  satisfied; 
By  the  knowledge  of  him  shall  my  servant  justify  many ; 
For  the  punishment  of  their  iniquities  he  shall  bear. 
Therefore  will  I  distribute  to  him  the  many  for  his  portion  ; 
And  the  mighty  people  shall  he  share  for  his  spoil ; 
Because  he  pour'd  his  soul  out  unto  death ; 
And  was  number'd  with  the  transgressors : 
And  he  bore  the  sin  of  many, 
And  made  intercession  for  the  transgressors." 

To  all  these  predictions  the  words  of  a  modern  writer  are  applicable : 
"  Let  now  the  infidel,  or  the  skeptical  reader,  meditate  thoroughly  and 
soberly  upon  these  predictions.  The  priority  of  the  records  to  the 
events  admits  of  no  question.  The  completion  is  obvious  to  every 
competent  inquirer.  Here  then  are  facts.  We  are  called  upon  to 
account  for  these  facts  on  rational  and  adequate  principles.  Is  human 
foresighF equal  to  the  task  ?  Enthusiasm  ?  Conjecture  ?  Chance  ?  Poli- 
tical contrivance  ?  If  none  of  these,  neither  can  any  other  principle 
that  may  be  devised  by  man's  sagacity,  account  for  the  facts ;  then, 
true  philosophy,  as  well  as  true  religion,  will  ascribe  them  to  the  inspi- 
ration of  the  Almighty.     Every  effect  must  have  a  cause."  (8) 

(3)  Simpson's  Key  to  the  Prophecies.  See  also  a  large  collection  of  prophecies 
with  their  fulfilment  in  the  Appendix  to  vol.  i,  of  Hobne's  Introduction  to  the 
Scriptures 

Vol.  I.  13 


194  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PAR* 

CHAPTER  XVIII. 

Objections  to  the  Evidence  from  Prophecy  considered. 

Beside  the  objections  which  have  been  anticipated  and  answered  in 
the  last  chapter,  others  have  been  made  to  the  argument  from  prophecy, 
which,  though  exceedingly  futile,  ought  to  receive  a  cursory  notice,  lest 
any  should  think  them  of  greater  importance. 

It  has  been  objected,  as  to  some  of  the  prophecies,  that  they  were 
written  after  the  event;  as  for  instance,  the  prophecy  of  Isaiah  in 
which  the  name  of  Cyrus  is  found,  and  the  prophecies  of  Daniel.  This 
allegation,  standing  as  it  does  upon  no  evidence  whatever,  and  being  in- 
deed in  opposition  to  contrary  proof,  shows  the  hopelessness  of  the  cause 
of  infidelity,  and  affords  a  lofty  triumph  to  the  evidence  of  prophecy.  For 
the  objector  does  in  fact  acknowledge,  that  these  predictions  are  not 
obscure  ;  that  the  event  exactly  corresponded  with  them  :  and  that  they 
were  beyond  human  conjecture.  Without  entering  into  those  ques- 
tions respecting  the  date  of  the  books  of  Isaiah  and  Daniel,  which  pro- 
perly belong  to  works  on  the  canon  of  Scripture,  we  may  observe,  that 
the  authors  of  this  objection  assert,  but  without  giving  the  least  proof, 
that  Isaiah  wrote  his  prophecies  in  order  to  natter  Cyrus,  and  that  the 
book  of  Daniel  was  composed  about  the  reign  of  Antiociius  Epi- 
phanes.  It  is  therefore  admitted  that  both  were  extant,  and  in  their 
present  form,  before  the  time  of  the  Christian  era ;  but  if  so,  what  end, 
we  ask,  is  answered  by  the  objection?  The  Scriptures,  as  received  by 
the  Jews,  were  verified  by  the  sentence  of  our  Lord  and  his  apostles ; 
and  uidess  their  inspiration  can  be  disproved,  the  objection  in  question 
is  a  mere  cavil.  Before  it  can  have  any  weight,  the  whole  mass  of 
evidence  which  supports  the  mission  and  Divine  authority  of  our  Saviour 
and  the  apostles,  must  be  overthrown  :  and  not  till  then  can  it  in  strict- 
ness of  reasoning  be  maintained.  But,  not  to  insist  on  this,  the  asser- 
tion respecting  Isaiah  is  opposed  to  positive  testimony.  The  testimony 
of  the  prophet  himself,  who  states  that  he  lived  "  in  the  days  of  Uzz;ah, 
Jotham,  Ahaz,  and  Hezekiah,  kings  of  Judah  ;"  and  the  testimony  of 
an  independent  witness,  the  author  of  the  Second  Book  of  Kings,  in  the 
twentieth  chapter  of  which  book  Isaiah  is  brought  forward  in  connec- 
tion with  a  public  event  of  the  Jewish  history — the  dangerous  sickness 
and  recovery  of  the  King  Hezekiah.  The  proof  is  then  as  decisive  as 
the  public  records  of  a  kingdom  can  make  it,  that  Isaiah  wrote  more 
than  a  hundred  years  before  the  birth  of  Cyrus.  (4) 

(4)  "  But  if  you  will  persevere  in  believing  that  the  prophecy  concerning 
Cyrus  was  written  after  the  event,  peruse  the  burden  of  Babylon  ;  was  that  also 
written  after  the  event  ?  Were  the  Medes  then  stirred  up  against  Babylon  ? 
Was  Babylon,  the  glory  of  the  kingdoms,  the  beauty  of  the  Chaldees,  tnen  over- 
thrown, and  become  as  Sodom  and  Gomorrah  ?    Was  it  then  uninhabited?    Wu 


FIRST.  1  THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES.  195 

The  time  when  Daniel  lived  and  wrote  is  bound  up  in  like  manner 
with  public  history, — and  that  not  only  of  the  Jews,  but  of  the  Babylo- 
nians and  Persians ;  and  could  not  be  antedated  so  as  to  impose  upon 
the  Jews,  who  received  the  book  which  bears  his  name  into  their  canon, 
as  the  production  of  the  same  Daniel  who  had  filled  exalted  stations  in 
the  courts  of  Nebuchadnezzar  and  his  successors.  In  favour  of  a  later 
date  being  assigned  to  the  book  of  Daniel,  it  has  been  said,  that  it  has 
in  my  Greek  terms,  and  that  it  was  not  translated  by  the  LXX,  the  trans- 
lation now  inserted  in  the  Septuagint  being  by  Theodotian.  With 
respect  to  the  Greek  terms,  they  are  chiefly  found  in  the  names  of  the 
musical  instruments ;  and  the  Greeks  acknowledge  that  they  derived 
their  music  from  the  eastern  nations.  With  respect  to  the  second  ob- 
jection, it  is  unfounded.  The  authors  of  the  Septuagint  did  translate  the 
book  of  Daniel,  and  their  version  is  cited  by  Clemens  Romanus,  Justin 
Martyr,  and  many  of  the  ancient  fathers;  it  occupied  a  column  of  the 
Hexapla  of  Origen,  and  is  quoted  by  Jerome.  The  present  Greek  ver- 
sion by  Theodotian  inserted  in  the  Septuagint,  was  made  in  the  second 
century,  and  preferred  as  being  more  conformable  to  the  original.  The 
repudiated  version  was  published  some  years  ago  from  an  ancient  MS. 
discovered  at  Rome.  (5) 

The  opponents  of  Scripture  are  fond  of  the  attempt  to  lower  the 
dignity  and  authority  of  the  sacred  prophecies  by  comparing  them  to  the 
heathen  oracles.  The  absolute  contrast  between  them  has  already  been 
pointed  out ;  (Vide  chapter  xvi ;)  but  a  few  additional  observations  may 
not  be  useless. 

Of  the  innumerable  oracles  which  were  established  and  consulted  by 
the  ancient  heathen,  the  most  celebrated  was  the  Delphic  ;  and  we  may, 
therefore,  for  the  purpose  of  exhibiting  the  contrast  more  perfectly  be- 
tween the  Pythian  oracle  and  the  prophecies  of  Scripture,  confine  our 
remarks  to  that. 

The  first  great  distinction  lies  in  this,  that  none  of  the  predictions  ever 

it  then  neither  fit  for  the  Arabian's  tent  nor  the  shepherd's  fold  ?  Did  the  wild 
beasts  of  the  desert  (hen  lie  there  ?  Did  the  wild  beasts  of  the  islands  then  cry  in 
their  desolate  houses,  and  dragons  in  their  pleasant  places?  Were  Nebuchad- 
nezzar and  Belshazzar,  the  son  and  the  grandson  then  cut  off?  Was  Babylon 
then  become  a  possession  of  the  bittern  and  pools  of  water?  Was  it  then  swept 
with  the  besom  of  destruction,  so  swept  that  the  world  knows  not  now  where  to 
find  it?"     (Bishop  Watson's  Apology.) 

(5)  Porphyry,  in  his  books  against  the  Christian  religion,  was  the  first  to 
attack  the  prophecies  of  Daniel ;  arid  in  modern  times,  Collins,  in  his  "  Sche.nie 
of  Literal  Prophecy,"  bent  all  his  force  against  a  book  so  pregnant  with  proofs 
of  the  truth  of  Christianity,  and  the  inspiration  of  ancient  prophecy.  By  two 
learned  opponents  his  eleven  objections  were  most  satisfactorily  refuted,  and 
shown  to  be  mere  cavils— by  Bishop  Chandler  in  his  "Vindication"  of  his  "De- 
fence of  Christianity,"  and  by  Dr.  Sam.  Chandler  in  his  "  Vindication  of  DanieJ's 
Prophecies." 


196  THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES.  [PART 

uttered  by  the  Delpnic  oracle  went  deep  into  futurity.  They  relate  to 
events  on  the  eve  of  taking  place,  and  whose  preparatory  circumstances 
were  known.  There  was  not  even  the  pretence  of  foresight  to  the  dis- 
tance of  a  few  years ;  though  had  it  been  a  hundred  years,  even  that 
were  a  very  limited  period  to  the  eye  of  inspired  prophets,  who  looked 
through  the  course  of  succeeding  ages,  and  gave  proof  by  the  very  sweep 
and  compass  of  their  predictions,  that  they  were  under  the  inspirations 
of  Him  to  whom  "  a  day  is  as  a  thousand  years,  and  a  thousand  years 
as  one  day." 

A  second  contrast  lies  in  the  ambiguity  of  the  responses.  The  pro- 
phecies of  Scripture  are  sometimes  obscure,  though  this  does  not  apply 
to  the  most  eminent  of  those  which  have  been  most  signally  fulfilled,  as 
we  have  already  seen  ;  but  they  never  equivocate.  For  this  the  Pythian 
oracle  was  notorious.  Historians  relate  that  Crossus,  who  had  expended 
large  sums  upon  the  agents  of  this  delusion,  was  tricked  by  an  equivo- 
cation ;  through  which,  interpreting  the  response  most  favourably  for 
himself,  he  was  induced  to  make  an  unsuccessful  war  on  Cyrus.  In  his 
subsequent  captivity  he  repeatedly  reproached  the  oracle,  and  charged 
it  with  falsehood.  The  response  delivered  to  Pyrrhus  was  of  the  same 
kind ;  and  was  so  expressed  as  to  be  true,  whether  Pyrrhus  conquered 
the  Romans  or  the  Romans  Pyrrhus.  Many  other  instances  of  the  same 
kind  are  given ;  not  to  mention  the  trifling,  and  even  bantering  and  jocose 
oracles,  which  were  sometimes  pronounced.  (6) 

The  venality,  wealth,  and  servility  of  the  Delphic  oracle,  present  an- 
other contrast  to  the  poverty  and  disinterestedness  of  the  Jewish  prophets, 
whom  no  gifts  could  bribe,  and  no  power  awe  in  the  discharge  of  their 
duty.  Demosthenes,  in  one  of  his  speeches  to  the  Athenians,  publicly 
charges  this  oracle  with  being  "  gained  over  to  the  interests  of  King 
Philip ;"  and  the  Greek  historians  give  other  instances  in  which  it  had 
been  corrupted  by  money,  and  the  prophetess  sometimes  deposed  for 
bribery,  sometimes  for  lewdness. 

Neither  threats  nor  persecutions  had  any  influence  with  the  Jewish 
prophets ;  but  it  would  seem  that  this  celebrated  oracle  of  Apollo  was 
not  even  proof  against  raillery.     At  first  it  gave  its  answers  in  verse ; 

(6)  Eusebius  has  preserved  some  fragments  of  a  philosopher  called  (Enomaus; 
who,  out  of  resentment  for  his  having  been  so  often  fooled  by  the  oracles,  wrote 
an  ample  confutation  of  all  their  impertinences  :  "  When  we  come  to  consult 
thee,"  says  he  to  Apollo,  "  if  thou  seest  what  is  in  futurity,  why  dost  thou  use  ex- 
pressions that  will  not  be  understood  ?  If  thou  dost,  thou  takest  pleasure  in  abusing 
ub ,  if  thou  dost  not,  bo  informed  of  us,  and  learn  to  speak  more  clearly.  I  tell 
thee,  that  if  thou  intendest  an  equivoque,  the  Greek  word  whereby  thou  affirmedst 
that  Croesus  should  overthrow  a  great  empire,  was  ill  chosen;  and  that  it  could 
signify  nothing  but  Croesus's  conquering  Cyrus.  If  things  must  necessarily  come 
to  pass,  why  dost  thou  amuse  us  with  thy  ambiguities  ?  What  dost  thou,  wretch 
as  thou  art,  at  Delphi ;  employed  in  muttering  idle  prophecies  7" 


FIRST.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  197 

but  the  Epicureans,  Cynics,  and  others  laughing  so  much  at  the  poor- 
ness of  the  versification,  it  fell  at  length  into  prose.  "  It  was  surprising," 
said  these  philosophic  wits,  "  that  Apollo,  the  god  of  poetry,  should  be  a 
much  worse  poet  than  Homer,  whom  he  himself  had  inspired."  Plu- 
tarch considers  this  as  a  principal  cause  of  the  declension  of  the  oracle 
of  Delphos.  Doubtless  it  had  declined  much  in  credit  in  his  day  ;  and 
the  farther  spread  of  Christianity  completed  its  ruin. 

Can  then  the  prophecies  of  Scripture  be  paralleled  with  these  dark,  and 
venal,  and  delusive  oracles,  without  impiety  ?  and  could  any  higher  honour 
be  wished  for  the  Jewish  prophets,  than  the  comparison  into  which  they 
are  thus  brought  with  the  agents  of  paganism  at  Delphos  and  other 
places  ?  They  had  recourse  to  no  smooth  speeches,  no  compliances  with 
the  tempers  and  prejudices  of  men.  They  concealed  no  truth  which 
they  were  commissioned  to  declare,  however  displeasing  to  their  nation 
and  hazardous  to  themselves.  They  required  no  caves,  or  secret  places 
of  temples,  from  which  to  utter  their  messages  ;  and  those  who  consulted 
them  were  not  practised  upon  by  the  bewildering  ceremonies  imposed 
upon  inquirers  at  Delphos.  They  prophesied  in  streets,  and  courts,  and 
palaces,  and  in  the  midst  of  large  assemblies.  Their  predictions  had  a 
clear,  determinate,  and  consistent  sense  ;  and  they  described  future 
events  with  so  many  particularities  of  time  and  place,  as  made  it 
scarcely  possible  that  they  should  be  misunderstood  or  misapplied. 

Pure  and  elevated  as  was  the  character  of  the  Jewish  prophets,  the 
hardihood  of  infidelity  has  attempted  to  asperse  their  character;  because 
it  appears  from  Scripture  story,  that  there  were  false  prophets  and  bad 
men  who  bore  that  name. 

Balaam  is  instanced,  though  not  a  Jewish  prophet ;  but  that  he  was 
always  a  bad  man,  wants  proof.  The  probability  is,  that  his  virtue  was 
overcome  by  the  offers  of  Balak  ;  and  the  prophetic  spirit  was  not  taken 
away  from  him,  because  there  was  an  evident  design  on  the  part  of 
God  to  make  his  favour  to  Israel  more  conspicuous,  by  obliging  a  reluct- 
ant prophet  to  bless,  when  he  would  have  cursed,  and  that  in  the  very 
presence  of  a  hostile  king.  When  that  work  was  done,  Balaam  was 
consigned  to  his  proper  punishment'. 

With  respect  to  the  Jewish  false  prophets,  it  is  a  singular  proceeding 
to  condemn  the  true  ones  for  their  sake,  and  to  argue  that  because  bad 
men  assumed  their  functions,  and  imitated  their  manner,  for  corrupt 
purposes,  the  universally-received  prophets  of  the  nation, — men  who, 
from  the  proofs  they  gave  of  their  inspiration,  had  their  commission 
acknowledged  even  by  those  who  hated  them,  and  their  writings 
received  into  the  Jewish  canon, — were  bad  men  also.  Let  the  charac- 
ters of  Moses,  Samuel,  Elijah,  Elisha,  Nathan,  Isaiah,  Jeremiah,  (7) 

'7)  A  weak   attempt  has  been  made  by  some  infidel  writers  to  fasten  a  charge 


198  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

Daniel,  and  the  authors  of  the  other  prophetical  books,  be  considerea ; 
and  how  true  are  the  words  of  the  apostle,  that  they  were  "  holy  men 
of  old,"  as  well  as  that  they  were  "  moved  by  the  Holy  Ghost  /"  That 
the  prophets  who  prophesied  "  smooth  things"  were  never  considered  as 
true  prophets,  except  for  a  time  by  a  few  who  wished  to  have  their  hopes 
nattered,  is  plain  from  this — none  of  their  writings  were  preserved  by 
the  Jews.  Their  predictions  would  not  abound  in  reproofs  and  tbreat- 
enings,  like  those  of  Isaiah  and  Jeremiah ;  and  yet  the  words  of  those 
prophets,  who  were  personally  most  displeasing  to  the  Jews  of  the  age 
in  which  they  lived,  have  been  preserved,  while  every  nattering  prophecy 
was  suffered  to  fall  into  oblivion  almost  as  soon  as  it  was  uttered.  Can 
we  have  a  more  decisive  proof  than  this,  that  the  false  prophets  were  a 
perfectly  distinct  class  of  men, — the  venal  imitators  of  these  "  holy  men 
of  old,"  but  who  never  gave,  even  to  those  most  disposed  to  listen  to 
their  delusive  prophecies,  a  satisfactory  proof  of  their  prophetic  com- 
mission ? 

Attempts  have  been  made  to  show  that  a  few  of  the  prophecies  of 
Scripture  have  failed.     The  following  are  the  principal  instances  : — 

It  has  been  said  that  a  false  promise  was  made  to  Abraham,  when  it 
was  promised  to  him,  that  his  descendants  should  possess  the  territory 
which  lies  between  the  Euphrates  and  the  river  of  Egypt.  But  this 
objection  is  clearly  made  in  ignorance  of  the  Scriptures ;  for  the  fact  is, 
that  David  conquered  that  territory,  and  that  the  dominions  of  Solomon 
were  thus  extended.  (Vide  2  Sam.  viii ;   1  Chron.  xviii.) 

Voltaire  objects,  that  the  prophets  made  promises  to  the  Jews  of  the 
most  unbounded  riches,  dominion,  and  influence ;  insomuch  that  they 
could  only  have  been  accomplished  by  their  conquering  or  proselyting 
the  entire  of  the  habitable  globe.  On  the  contrary,  he  says,  they  have 
lost  their  possessions  instead  of  obtaining  either  property  or  power,  and 
therefore  the  prophecies  are  false. 

The  case  is  here  unfairly  stated.  The  prophets  never  made  such 
exaggerated  promises.  They  predict  many  spiritual  blessings  to  be 
bestowed  in  the  times  of  Messiah,  under  figures  drawn  from  worldly 
opulence  and  power,  the  figurative  language  of  which  no  attentive 
reader  can  mistake.  They  also  promise  many  civil  advantages,  but 
only  conditionally  on  the  obedience  of  the  nation ;  and  they  speak  in 
high  terms  of  the  state  of  the  Jewish  nation,  upon  its  final  restoration, 
for  which  objectors  must  wait  before  they,  can  determine  the  predictions 
to  be  false.  But  did  not  Voltaire  know,  that  the  loss  of  their  own 
country  by  the  Jews,  of  which  he  speaks,  was  predicted  in  the  clearest 
manner?  and  would  he  not  have  seen,  had  he  not  been  blinded  by  his 

of  falsehood  on  Jeremiah,  in  the  ease  of  his  confidential  interview  with  King 
Zedekiah.  A  satisfactory  refutation  is  given  by  Bishop  W  itson  in  his  answer  to 
Paine,  letter  vi. 


FIRST.J  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  19& 

prejudices,  that  his  very  objection  acknowledges  the  truth  of  prophecy  1 
The  promises  of  the  prophels  have  not  been  falsified  in  the  instance 
given,  but  their  threats  have  been  signally  fulfilled. 

Paine,  following  preceding  writers  of  the  same  sentiments,  asserts  the 
prophecy  of  Isaiah  to  Ahaz  not  to  have  been  verified  by  the  event,  and 
is  thus  answered  by  Bishop  Watson :  (Apology,  letter  v :)  "  The  pro- 
phecy is  quoted  by  you,  to  prove,  and  it  is  the  only  instance  you  produce, 
that  Isaiah  was  '  a  lying  prophet  and  impostor.'  Now  I  maintain, 
that  this  very  instance  proves  that  he  was  a  true  prophet  and  no  im- 
postor. .  The  history  of  the  prophecy,  as  delivered  in  the  seventh  chapter, 
is  this, — Rezin  king  of  Syria,  and  Pekah  king  of  Israel,  made  war  upon 
Ahaz  king  of  Judah ;  not  merely,  or,  perhaps,  not  at  all  for  the  sake  of 
plunder,  or  the  conquest  of  territory,  but  with  a  declared  purpose  of 
making  an  entire  revolution  in  the  government  of  Judah,  of  destroying 
the  royal  house  of  David,  and  of  placing  another  family  on  the  throne. 
Their  purpose  is  thus  expressed — '  Let  us  go  up  against  Judah,  and  vex 
it,  and  let  us  make  a  breach  therein  for  us,  and  set  a  king  in  the  midst 
of  it,  even  the  son  of  Tabeal.'  Now  what  did  the  Lord  commission 
Isaiah  to  say  to  Ahaz  ?  Did  he  commission  him  to  say,  The  kings  shall 
not  vex  thee  ?  No. — The  kings  shall  not  conquer  thee  ?  No. — The  kings 
shall  not  succeed  against  thee?  No.  He  commissioned  him  to  say — 
'  It  (the  purpose  of  the  two  kings)  shall  not  stand,  neither  shall  it  come 
to  pass.'  I  demand — Did  it  stand,  did  it  come  to  pass  ?  Was  any 
revolution  effected  ?  Was  the  royal  house  of  David  dethroned  and 
destroyed  ?  Was  Tabeal  ever  made  king  of  Judah  1  No.  The  pro- 
phecy was  perfectly  accomplished.  You  say,  '  Instead  of  these  two 
kings  failing  in  their  attempt  against  Ahaz,  they  succeeded :  Ahaz  was 
defeated  and  destroyed.'  I  deny  the  fact :  Ahaz  was  defeated  but  not 
destroyed  ;  and  even  the  « two  hundred  thousand  women,  and  sons  and 
daughters,'  whom  you  represent  as  carried  into  captivity,  were  not  car- 
ried into  captivity  :  they  were  made  captives,  but  they  were  not  carried 
into  captivity ;  for  the  chief  men  of  Samaria,  being  admonished  by  a 
prophet,  would  not  suffer  Pekah  to  bring  the  captives  into  the  land, — 
*  Thev  rose  up,  and  took  the  captives,  and  with  the  spoil  clothed  all  that 
were  naked  among  them,  and  arrayed  them  and  shod  them,  and  gave, 
them  to  eat  and  to  drink,  and  anointed  them,  and  carried  all  the  feeble 
of  them  upon  asses,  (some  humanity,  you  see,  among  those  Israelites, 
whom  you  every  where  represent  as  barbarous  brutes,)  and  brought  them 
to  Jericho,  the  city  of  palm  trees,  to  their  brethren,'  2  Chron.  xxviii,  15. 
The  kings  did  fail  in  their  attempt :  their  attempt  was  to  destroy  the 
house  of  David,  and  to  make  a  revolution  :  but  they  made  no  revolution  ; 
they  did  not  destroy  the  house  of  David,  for  Ahaz  slept  with  his  fathers ; 
and  Hezekiah,  his  son,  of  the  house  of  David,  reigned  in  his  stead." 

A  similar  attempt  is  made  by  the  same  writer  to  fix  a  charge  of  false 


200  THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES.  (.PART 

vaticination  upon  Jeremiah,  and  is  thus  answered  by  the  bishop  of 
Llandaff :  "  '  In  the  thirty-fourth  chapter  is  a  prophecy  of  Jeremiah  to 
Zedekiah,  in  these  words,  verse  2,  Thus  saith  the  Lord,  Behold  I  will 
give  this  city  into  the  hands  of  the  king  of  Babylon,  and  will  burn  it  with 
fire ;  and  thou  shalt  not  escape  out  of  his  hand,  but  thou  shall  surely  be 
taken,  and  delivered  into  his  hand  !  and  thine  eyes  shall  behold  the  eyes 
of  the  king  of  Babylon,  and  he  shall  speak  with  thee  mouth  to  mouth,  and 
thou  shtdt  go  to  Babylon.  Yet  hear  the  word  of  the  Lord,  O  Zedekiah 
king  of  Judah :  thus  saith  the  Lord,  Thou  shalt  not  die  by  the  sword,  but 
thou  shalt  die  in  peace  ;  and  with  the  burnings  of  thy  fathers,  the  former 
kings  that  were  before  thee,  so  shall  they  burn  odours  for  thee,  and  wiU 
larrxiit  thee,  saying,  Ah,  lord  !  for  I  have  pronounced  the  word  saith  the 
Lord. — Now,  instead  of  Zedekiah  beholding  the  eyes  of  the  king  of 
Babylon,  and  speaking  with  him  mouth  to  mouth,  and  dying  in  peace, 
and  with  the  burnings  of  odours  at  the  funeral  of  his  fathers,  (as 
Jeremiah  hath  declared  the  Lord  himself  had  pronounced,)  the  reverse, 
according  to  the  fifty-second  chapter,  was  the  case :  it  is  there  stated, 
(verse  10,)  That  the  king  of  Babylon  slew  the  sons  of  Zedekiah  before 
his  eyes  ;  then  he  put  out  the  eyes  of  Zedekiah,  and  bound  him  in  chains, 
and  carried  him  to  Babylon,  and  put  him  in  prison  till  the  day  of  his  death. 
What  can  we  say  of  these  prophets,  but  that  they  are  impostors  and 
Bars  ?'  I  can  say  this — that  the  prophecy  you  have  produced  was  ful- 
filled in  all  its  parts ;  and  what  then  shall  be  said  of  those  who  call 
Jeremiah  a  liar  and  an  impostor  ?  Here  then  we  are  fairly  at  issue — 
you  affirm  that  the  prophecy  was  not  fulfilled,  and  I  affirm  that  it  was 
fulfilled  in  all  its  parts.  •  I  will  give  this  city  into  the  hands  of  the  king 
of  Babylon,  and  he  shall  bum  it  with  fire  :'  so  says  the  prophet.  What 
says  the  history?  'They  (the  forces  of  the  king  of  Babylon)  burnt  the 
house  cf  God,  and  brake  down  the  walls  of  Jerusalem,  and  burnt  all  the 
palaces  thereof  with  fire,'  2  Chron.  xxxvi,  19. — 'Thou  shalt  not  escape 
out  of  his  hand,  but  thou  shalt  surely  be  taken  and  delivered  into  his 
hand  :'  so  says  the  prophet.  What  says  the  history  ?  '  The  men  of 
war  fled  by  night,  and  the  king  went  the  way  toward  the  plain,  and  the 
army  of  the  Chaldees  pursued  after  the  king,  and  overtook  him  in  the 
plains  of  Jericho :  and  all  his  army  were  scattered  from  him  :  so  they 
took  the  king,  and  brought  him  up  to  the  king  of  Babylon,  to  Riblah,' 
2  Kings  xxv,  5.  The  prophet  goes  on,  '  Thine  eyes  shall  behold  the 
eyes  of  the  king  of  Babylon,  and  he  shall  speak  with  thee  mouth  to 
mouth.'  No  pleasant  circumstance  this  to  Zedekiah,  who  had  provoked 
the  king  of  Babylon  by  revolting  from  him.  The  history  says,  •  The 
king  of  Babylon  gave  judgment  upon  Zedekiah,'  or,  as  it  is  more  literally 
•rendered  from  the  Hebrew,  '  spake  judgments  with  him  at  Riblah.' 
The  prophet  concludes  this  part  with,  «  A.nd  thou  shalt  go  to  Babylon :' 
the  history  says,  '  The  king   of  Babylon  bound    him  in  chains,  and 


THEOLOGICAL     INSTITUTES.  201 

carried  him  to  Babylon,  and  put  him  in  prison  till  the  day  of  his  death,' 
Jer.  Hi,  1 1. — *  Thou  shalt  not  die  by  the  sword.'  He  did  not  die  by  the 
sword,  he  did  not  fall  in  battle. — «  But  thou  shalt  die  in  peace.'  He  did 
die  in  peace,  he  neither  expired  on  the  rack  nor  on  the  scaffold ;  was 
neither  strangled  nor  poisoned,  no  unusual  fate  of  captive  kings  ;  he  died 
peaceably  in  his  bed,  though  that  bed  was  in  a  prison. — '  And  with  the 
burnings  of  thy  fathers  shall  they  burn  odours  before  thee.'  I  cannot 
prove  from  the  history  that  this  part  of  the  prophecy  was  accomplished, 
nor  can  you  prove  that  it  was  not.  The  probability  is,  that  it  was  ac- 
complished ;  and  I  have  two  reasons  on  which  I  ground  this  probability. 
Daniel,  Shadrach,  Meshach,  and  Abednego,  to  say  nothing  of  other 
Jews,  were  men  of  great  authority  in  the  court  of  the  king  of  Babylon, 
before  and  after  the  commencement  of  the  imprisonment  of  Zedekiah ; 
and  Daniel  continued  in  power  till  the  subversion  of  the  kingdom  of 
Babylon  by  Cyrus.  Now  it  seems  to  me  to  be  very  probable,  that 
Daniel  and  the  other  great  men  of  the  Jews,  would  both  have  inclina- 
tion to  request,  and  influence  enough  with  the  king  of  Babylon  to  obtain 
permission  to  bury  their  deceased  prince  Zedekiah,  after  the  manner  of 
his  fathers.  But  if  there  had  been  no  Jews  at  Babylon  of  consequence 
enough  to  make  such  a  request,  still  it  is  probable  that  the  king  of 
Babylon  would  have  ordered  the  Jews  to  bury  and  lament  their  departed 
prince,  after  the  manner  of  their  country.  Monarchs,  like  other  men, 
are  conscious  of  the  instability  of  human  condition ;  and  when  the 
pomp  of  war  has  ceased,  when  the  insolence  of  conquest  is  abated,  and 
the  fury  of  resentment  is  subsided,  they  seldom  fail  to  revere  royalty  even 
in  its  ruins,  and  grant,  without  reluctance,  proper  obsequies  to  the 
remains  of  captive  kings." 

Ezekiel  is  assaulted  in  the  same  manner.  "  You  quote,"  says  the 
same  writer,  "  a  passage  from  Ezekiel,  in  the  twenty-ninth  chapter, 
where  speaking  of  Egypt,  it  is  said — '  No  foot  of  man  shall  pass  through 
it,  nor  foot  of  beast  shall  pass  through  it,  neither  shall  it  be  inhabited 
forty  years ;'  this,  you  say,  '  never  came  to  pass,  and  consequently  it  is 
false,  as  all  the  books  I  have  already  reviewed  are.'  Now  that  the  in- 
vasion predicted  did  come  to  pass,  we  have,  as  Bishop  Newton  observes, 
« the  testimonies  of  Megasthenes  and  Berosus,  two  heathen  historians, 
who  lived  about  300  years  before  Christ;  one  of  whom  affirms,  ex- 
pressly, that  Nebuchadnezzar  conquered  the  greater  part  of  Africa  ;  and 
the  other  affirms  it  in  effect,  in  saying,  that  when  Nebuchadnezzar 
heard  of  the  death  of  his  father,  having  settled  his  affairs  in  Egypt,  and 
committed  the  captives  whom  he  took  in  Egypt  to  the  care  of  some  of 
his  friends  to  bring  them  after  him,  he  hasted  directly  to  Babylon.' 
And  if  we  had  been  possessed  of  no  testimony  in  support  of  the  pro. 
pheoy,  it  would  have  been  a  hasty  conclusion,  that  the  prophecy  never 
came  to  pass ;  the  history  of  Egypt,  at  so  remote  a  period,  being  no 


202  THEOLOGICAL   INSTITUTES.  [PART 

where  accurately  and  circumstantially  related.  I  admit  that  no  period 
can  be  pointed  out  from  the  age  of  Ezekiel  to  the  present,  in  which 
there  was  no  foot  of  man  or  beast  to  be  seen  for  forty  years  in  all  Egypt ; 
but  some  think  that  only  a  part  of  Egypt  is  here  spoken  of;  (8)  and 
surely  you  do  not  expect  a  literal  accomplishment  of  a  hyperbolical  ex- 
pression, denoting  great  desolation ;  importing  that  the  trade  of  Egypt 
which  was  carried  on  then,  as  at  present,  by  caravans,  by  the  foot  of  man 
and  beast,  should  be  annihilated." 

To  this  we  may  add,  that  the  passage  respecting  the  depopulation  of 
Egypt  stands  in  the  midst  of  an  extended  prophecy,  which  has  received 
the  most  marked  fulfilment,  and  illustrates,  perhaps  as  strikingly  as  any 
thing  which  can  be  adduced,  the  cavilling  spirit  of  infidelity,  and  proves 
that  truth  could  never  be  the  object  of  discussions  thus  conducted.  Here 
is  a  passage  which  has  some  obscurity  hanging  over  it.  No  one  how- 
ever  can  prove  that  it  was  not  accomplished,  even  so  fully  that  the 
expressions  might  be  used  without  violent  hyperbole  ;  for  the  invasion 
of  Nebuchadnezzar  was  one  of  the  same  sweeping  and  devastating 
character  as  his  invasion  and  conquest  of  Judea  :  and  we  know  that  the 
greater  part  of  the  inhabitants  of  that  country  were  destroyed,  or  led 
captive,  and  that  the  land  generally  remained  untilled  for  seventy  years, 
though  not  absolutely  left  without  inhabitant.  In  the  common  language 
of  men,  Judea  might  be  said  not  to  be  inhabited,  so  prodigious  was  the 
excision  of  its  people ;  and  in  such  circumstances,  from  the  total  ces- 
sation of  all  former  intercourse,  commercial  and  otherwise,  between  the 
different  parts  of  the  kingdom,  it  might  also,  without  exaggeration,  be 
said,  that  the  foot  of  man  and  beast  did  not  "  pass  through  it ;"  their 
going  from  one  part  to  another  on  business,  or  for  worship  at  Jerusalem, 
being  wholly  suspended.  Now,  as  we  have  no  reason  to  suppose  the 
Babylonian  monarch  to  have  been  more  merciful  to  Egypt  than  to  Judea, 
the  same  expressions  in  a  popular  sense  might  be  used  in  respect  of  that 
country.  Here  however  infidelity  thought  a  cavil  might  be  raised,  and 
totally — may  we  not  say  wilfully  ? — overlooked  a  prediction  immediately 
following,  which  no  human  sagacity  could  conjecture,  and  against  which 
it  is  in  vain  to  urge,  that  it  was  written  after  the  event :  for  the  accom- 
plishment of  the  prophecy  runs  on  to  the  present  day,  and  is  as  palpable 
and  obvious  as  the  past  history,  and  the  present  political  state  of  that 
country — "  Egypt  shall  be  the  basest  of  the  kingdoms,  neither  shall  it 

(8)  The  opinion  of  the  bishop,  that  not  the  whole  of  what  is  now  called  Egypt 
was  intended  in  the  prophecy,  seems  to  derive  confirmation  from  the  following 
passages  in  Richardson's  Travels  in  Egypt  in  1817  : — "  The  Delta,  according  to 
the  tradition  of  the  Jonians,  is  the  only  part  that  is,  strictly  speaking,  entitled 
to  be  called  Egypt,  which  is  hieroglyphically  represented  by  the  figure  of  a  heart, 
no  unapt  similitude." — "  The  principal  places  mentioned  in  our  sacred  writings, 
Zoan,  Noph,  and  Tophanes,  are  all  referable  to  the  Delta.  Probably  little  of 
them  remains." 


FIRST.J  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  203 

exalt  itself  any  more  above  the  nations — there  shall  be  no  more  a  prince 
of  the  land  of  Egypt."  (Vide  Ezek.  xxix  and  xxx.)  It  is  more  than 
two  thousand  years  since  the  prophecy  was  delivered,  and  Egypt  has 
never  recovered  its  liberties,  but  is  to  this  day  under  the  yoke  of  foreigners. 
It  was  conquered  by  the  Babylonians  ;  then  by  the  Persians  ;  and  in  sue 
cession  passed  under  the  dominion  of  the  Macedonians,  Romans,  Sara- 
cens, Mamelucs,  and  Turks.  No  native  prince  of  Egypt  has  ever 
restored  his  country  to  independence,  and  ascended  the  throne  of  his 
ancestors ;  and  the  descendants  of  the  ancient  Egyptians  are  to  this 
hour  in  the  basest  and  most  oppressed  condition.  Yet  in  Egypt  the 
human  mind  had  made  some  of  its  earliest  and  most  auspicious  efforts. 
The  stupendous  monuments  of  art  and  power,  the  ruins  of  which  lie 
piled  upon  the  banks  of  the  Nile,  or  still  defy  the  wastes  of  time,  attest 
the  vastness  of  the  designs,  and  the  extent  of  the  power  of  its  princes. 
Egypt,  too,  was  possessed  of  great  natural  advantages.  Its  situation  was 
singularly  calculated  to  protect  it  against  foreign  invasion ;  while  its 
great  fertility  promised  to  secure  the  country  it  enriched  from  poverty, 
baseness,  and  subjection.  Yet  after  a  long  course  of  grandeur,  and  in 
contradiction  to  its  natural  advantages,  Ezekiel  pronounced  that  the 
kingdom  should  be  "  the  basest  of  all  kingdoms,"  and  that  there  shoulc 
be  "  no  more  a  prince  of  the  land  of  Egypt."  So  the  event  has  been, 
and  so  it  remains ;  and  that  this  wonderful  prophecy  should  be  passeo 
over  by  infidels  in  silence,  while  they  select  from  it  a  passage  which 
promised  to  give  some  colour  to  objection,  is  deeply  characteristic  of 
the  state  of  their  minds.  It  is  not  from  deficiency  of  evidence  that  the 
word  of  God  is  rejected  by  them.  The  evil  is  not  the  want  of  light, 
but  the  love  of  darkness. 

Much  ridicule  has  been  cast  upon  the  prophets  for  those  significant 
actions  by  which  they  illustrated  their  predictions ;  as  when  Jeremiah 
hides  his  linen  girdle  in  a  hole  of  the  rock,  and  breaks  a  potter's  vesse 
in  the  sight  of  the  people  ;  when  Ezekiel  weighs  the  hair  of  his  heai 
and  beard  in  balances,  with  many  other  instances  familiar  to  those  who 
read  the  Scriptures.  But  this  ridicule  can  only  proceed  from  ignorance. 
In  the  early  ages  of  the  world,  the  deficiency  of  language  was  often 
supplied  by  signs ;  and  when  language  was  improved,  "  the  practice 
remained,"  says  Bishop  Warburton,  "  after  the  necessity  was  over ; 
especially  among  the  easterns,  whose  natural  temperament  inclined 
them  to  this  mode  of  conversation.  The  charges  then  of  absurdity  and 
fanaticism  brought  against  the  prophets,  vanish  of  themselves.  The 
absurdity  of  an  action  consists  in  its  being  extravagant  and  insignificative ; 
but  use  and  a  fixed  application  made  the  actions  in  question  both  sober 
and  pertinent.  The  fanaticism  of  an  action  consists  in  fondness  for 
such  actions  as  are  unusual,  and  for  foreign  modes  of  speech  ;  but  those 
of  the  prophets  were  idiomatic  and  familiar."    We  may  add,  that  several 


204  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

of  these  actions  were  performed  in  vision ;  and  that,  considering  the 
genius  of  the  people  who  were  addressed,  they  were  calculated  strongly 
to  excite  their  attention,  the  end  for  which  they  were  adopted. 

Such  are  the  principal  objections  which  have  been  made  to  Scripture 
prophecy,  as  the  proof  of  Scripture  truth.  That  they  are  so  few  and 
so  feeble,  when  enemies  so  prying  and  capable  have  employed  them- 
selves with  so  much  misplaced  zeal  to  discover  any  vulnerable  part,  is  the 
triumph  of  truth.  Their  futility  has  been  pointed  out ;  and  the  whole 
weight  of  the  preceding  evidence  in  favour  of  the  truth  of  the  Old  and 
New  Testaments,  remains  unmoved.  We  have,  indeed,  but  glanced  at 
a  few  of  these  extraordinary  revelations  of  the  future,  for  the  sake,  not 
of  exhibiting  the  evidence  of  prophecy,  which  would  require  a  distinct 
volume,  but  of  explaining  its  nature  and  pointing  out  its  force.  To  the 
prophecies  of  the  Old  Testament,  the  attentive  inquirer  will  add  those 
of  our  Lord  and  his  apostles,  which  will  appear  not  less  extraordinary  in 
themselves,  nor  less  illustrious  in  their  fulfilment,  so  far  as  they  have 
received  their  accomplishment.  Many  prophecies  both  of  the  Old  and 
New  Testament  evidently  point  to  future  times,  and  this  kind  of  evi- 
dence will  consequently  accumulate  with  the  lapse  of  ages,  and  may  be 
among  the  means  by  which  Jews,  Mohammedans,  and  pagans  shall  be 
turned  to  the  Christian  faith.  At  all  events,  prophecy  even  unfulfilled 
now  answers  an  important  end.  It  opens  our  prospect  into  the  future . 
and  if  the  detail  is  obscure,  yet,  notwithstanding  the  mighty  contest 
which  is  still  going  on  between  opposing  powers  and  principles,  we  see 
how  the  struggle  will  terminate,  and  know,  to  use  a  prophetic  phrase, 
that  "  at  eventime  it  shall  be  light." 


CHAPTER  XIX. 

Internal  Evidence  of  the  Truth  of  Scripture — Collateral 
Evidence. 

The  internal  evidence  of  a  revelation  from  God  has  been  stated  to  be 
that  which  arises  from  the  apparent  excellence  and  beneficial  tendency 
of  the  doctrine.  (Vide  chap,  ix.)  This  at  least  is  its  chief  charac- 
teristic, though  other  particulars  may  also  be  included  in  this  species  of 
proof,  and  shall  be  adduced. 

The  reader  will  recollect  the  distinction  made  in  the  chapter  just 
referred  to,  between  rational  and  authenticating  evidence.  It  has  been 
observed,  that  there  are  some  truths  made  known  to  us  through  the 
medium  of  a  revelation  from  God,  which,  though  in  their  nature  undis- 
coverable  by  the  unassisted  faculties  of  man,  yet,  when  once  revealed, 
carry  to  our  reason,  so  far  as  they  are  of  a  nature  to  be  comprehended 
by  it,  the  demonstration  which  accompanies  truth  of  any  other  kind 


FIHST.]  THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES.  206 

(Vide  chip,  ix.)  But  it  is  only  within  the  limit  just  mentioned  that  this 
position  holds  good ;  for  such  truths  only  must  be  understood  as  are 
accompanied  with  reasons  or  rational  proofs  in  the  revelation  itself,  or 
which,  when  once  suggested  to  the  mind,  directs  its  thoughts  and 
observations  to  surrounding  facts  and  circumstances,  or  to  established 
truths  to  which  they  are  capable  of  being  compared,  and  by  which  they 
are  confirmed.  The  internal  evidence  of  the  Holy  Scriptures,  therefore, 
as  far  as  doctrine  is  concerned,  is  restrained  to  truths  of  this  class.  Of 
other  truths  revealed  to  us  in  the  Bible,  and  those  in  many  instances 
fundamental  to  the  system  of  Christianity,  we  have  no  proof  of  this 
kind ;  but  they  stand  on  the  firm  basis  of  Divine  attestation,  and  suffer 
no  diminution  of  their  authority  because  the  reasons  of  them  are  either 
hidden  from  us  for  purposes  of  moral  discipline,  or  because  they  trans- 
cend our  faculties.  If  we  had  the  reasons  of  them  before  us,  thev 
would  not  be  more  authentic,  though  to  the  understanding  they  would 
be  more  obvious.  Such  are  the  doctrines  of  a  trinity  of  persons  in  the 
unity  of  the  Godhead ;  of  the  hypostatic  union  of  the  two  natures  in 
Christ ;  of  his  Divine  and  eternal  Sonship,  &c.  Such  are  many  facts 
in  the  Divine  government-+-as  the  permission  of  evil,  and  the  long  appa- 
rent abandonment  of  heathen  nations — the  unequal  religious  advantages 
afforded  to  individuals  as  well  as  nations — and  many  of  the  circum- 
stances of  our  individual  moral  trial  upon  earthy  Of  the  truth  of  these 
doctrines,  and  the  fitness  of  these  and  many  other  facts,  we  have  no 
internal  evidence  whatever ;  but  a  very  large  class  of  truths  which  are 
found  in  the  revelations  of  Scripture,  afford  more  or  less  of  this  kind  of 
proof,  and  make  their  appeal  to  our  reason  as  well  as  to  our  faith ; — in 
other  words,  their  reasonableness  is  such,  that  though  the  great  demon- 
stration does  not  rest  upon  that,  it  affords  an  additional  argument  why 
they  should  be  thankfully  received,  and  heartily  credited. 

The  first  and  fundamental  doctrine  of  Scripture  is,  the  existence  of 
God ;  the  great  and  the  sole  First  Cause  of  all  things ;  eternal,  self 
existent,  present  in  all  places,  knowing  all  things ;  infinite  in  power 
and  wisdom ;  and  perfect  in  goodness,  justice,  holiness,  and  truth. 
That  this  view  of  the  Divine  Being,  for  which  we  are  indebted  to  the 
Scriptures  alone,  presents  itself  with  powerful  rational  demonstration  to 
the  mind  of  man,  is  illustriously  shown  by  that  astonishing  change  of 
opinion  on  this  great  subject  which  took  place  in  pagan  nations  upon 
the  promulgation  of  Christianity,  and  which  in  Europe  continues  to  this 
day  substantially  unaltered.  Not  only  those  gross  notions  which  pre- 
vailed among  the  vulgar,  but  the  dark,  uncertain,  and  contradictory 
researches  of  the  philosophers  of  different  schools  have  passed  away ; 
and  the  truth  respecting  God,  stated  in  the  majesty  and  simplicity  of 
the  Scriptures,  has  been,  with  few  exceptions,  universally  received,  and 
that  among  enlightened  Deists  themselves.    These  discoveries  of  revela- 


2CK5  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  IPART 

lion  have  satisfied  the  human  mind  on  this  great  and  primary  doctrine ; 
and  have  given  it  a  resting  place  which  it  never  before  found,  and  from 
which,  if  it  ever  departs,  it  finds  no  demonstration  until  it  returns  to  the 
**  marvellous  light"  into  which  revealed  religion  has  introduced  us.  A 
class  of  ideas,  the  most  elevated  and  sublime,  and  which  the  most  pro- 
found minds  in  former  times  sought  without  success,  have  thus  become 
familiar  to  the  very  peasants  in  Christian  nations.  Nothing  can  be  a 
more  striking  proof  of  the  appeal  which  the  Scripture  character  of  God 
makes  to  the  unsophisticated  reason  of  mankind.  (9) 

Of  the  state  and  condition  of  man  as  it  is  represented  in  our  holy 
writings,  the  evidence  from  fact,  and  from  the  consciousness  of  our  own 
bosoms,  is  very  copious.  What  man  is,  in  his  relations  to  God  his  maker 
and  governor,  we  had  never  discovered  without  revelation ;  but  now 
this  is  made  known,  confirmatory  fact  crowds  in  on  every  side,  and 
affords  its  evidence  of  the  truth  of  the  doctrine. 

The  Old  and  New  Testaments  agree  in  representing  the  human  race 
as  actually  vicious,  and  capable,  without  moral  check  and  control,  of 
the  greatest  enormities ;  so  that  not  only  individual  happiness,  but 
social  also,  is  constantly  obstructed  or  endangered.  To  this  the  history 
of  all  ages  bears  witness,  and  present  experience  gives  its  testimony. — 
All  the  states  of  antiquity  crumbled  down,  or  were  suddenly  over- 
whelmed,  by  their  own  vices ;  and  the  general  character  and  conduct 
of  the  people  which  composed  them  may  be  read  in  the  works  of 
their  historians,  poets,  and  satirists,  which  have  been  transmitted  to  our 
times.  These,  as  to  the  Greeks  and  Romans,  fully  bear  out  the  dark- 
est colouring  of  their  moral  condition  to  be  found  in  the  well  known  first 
chapter  of  St.  Paul's  Epistle  to  the  Church  at  Rome,  and  other  pas- 
sages in  his  various  epistles.  To  this  day,  the  same  represe.it  at  ion 
depicts  the  condition  of  almost  all  pagan  countries,  and,  in  many  respects 
too,  some  parts  of  Christendom,  where  the  word  of  God  has  been  hid- 
den from  the  people,  and  its  moral  influence,  consequently,  has  not 
been  suffered  to  develope  itself.     In  those  countries  also  where  that 

(9)  The  Scripture  character  of  the  Divine  Being  is  thus  strikingly  drawn  out 
by  Dr.  A.  Clarke  in  his  note  on  Gen.  i,  1  : — 

"The  eternal,  independent,  and  self-existent  Being.  The  Being  whose  pur- 
poses and  actions  spring  from  himself,  without  foreign  motive  or  influence  :  he 
who  is  ahsolute  in  dominion;  the  most  pure,  most  simple,  and  most  spiritual -of 
all  essences  :  infinitely  benevolent,  beneficent,  true,  and  holy :  the  cause  of  all 
being,  the  upholder  of  all  things;  infinitely  happy,  because  infinitely  good;  and 
eternally  self  sufficient,  needing  nothing  that  he  has  made.  Illimitable  in  his 
immensity,  inconceivable  in  his  mode  of  existence,  and  indescribable  in  his 
essence  :  known  fully  only  to  himself,  because  an  infinite  mind  can  only  be 
comprehended  by  itself.  In  a  word,  a  Being  who,  from  his  infinite  wisdom, 
cannot  err  or  be  deceived  ;  and  who,  from  his  infinite  goodness,  can  do  nothing 
but  what  is  eternally  just,  right,  and  kind." 


FIRST.]  THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES.  207 

corrective  has  been  most  carefully  applied,  though  exalted  beyond  com- 
parison  in  just,  honourable,  benevolent,  and  sober  principles  and  habits, 
along  with  the  frequent  occurrence  of  numerous  and  gross  actual 
crimes,  the  same  appetites  and  passions  may  be  seen  in  constant  con- 
test with  the  laws  of  the  state ;  with  the  example  of  the  virtuous  ;  and 
the  controlling  influence  of  the  word  of  God,  preached  by  faithful  minis- 
tors,  taught  as  a  part  of  the  process  of  education,  and  spread  througk 
society  by  the  multiplication  of  its  copies  since  the  invention  of  printing. 
The  Holy  Scriptures  therefore  characterize  man  only  as  he  is  actually 
found  in  all  ages,  and  in  all  places  to  the  utmost  bounds  of  those  geogra- 
phical discoveries  which  have  been  made  through  the  adventurous  spirit 
of  modern  navigators. 

But  they  not  only  assume  men  to  be  actually  vicious,  but  vicious  in 
consequence  of  a  moral  taint  in  their  nature, — originally  and  inevilably 
so,  but  for  those  provisions  of  grace  and  means  of  sanctity  of  which 
they  speak ;  and  as  this  assumption  is  the  basis  of  the  whole  scheme 
of  moral  restoration,  through  the  once  promised  seed  of  the  woman,  and 
the  now  actually  given  Jesus,  the  Saviour,  so  they  constantly  remind 
him  that  he  is  " born  in  sin,  and  shapen  in  iniquity"  and  that,  being 
born  of  the  flesh,  "  he  cannot  phase  God."     What  is  thus  represented 
as  doctrine  appeals  to  our  reason  through  the  evidence  of  unquestiona- 
ble fact.      The  strong  tendency  of  man  to  crime   cannot  be  denied. 
Civil   penal    laws   are  enacted  for  no  other  purpose   than   to  repress 
it ;    they   are  multiplied   in  the  most  civilized  states   to  shut  out  the 
evil  in  ail  those  new  directions  toward  which  the  multiplied  relations  of 
man,  and  his  increased  power,  arising  from  increased  intelligence,  have 
given  it  its  impulse.      Every  legal  deed,  with  its  seals  and  witnesses 
bears  testimony  to  that  opinion  as  to  human  nature  which  the  experience 
of  man  nas  impressed  on  man  ;  and  history  itself  is  a  record  chiefly  of 
human  g»t:!t,  because  examples  of  crime  have  every  where  and  at  all 
times  been  much  more  frequent  than  examples  of  virtue.     This  ten 
dency  to  evil,  the  Seriptures  tell  us,  arises  from  "  the  heart" — the  nature 
and  disposition  of  man ;  and  it  is  not  otherwise  to  be  accounted  for. — 
Some  indeed  have  represented  the  corruption  of  the  race,  as  the  result 
of  association  and  example ;  but  if  men  were   naturally    inclined   to 
good,  and  averse  to  evil,  how  is  it  that  not  a  few  individuals  only,  but 
the  whole  race  have  become  evil  by  mutual  association?     Thi-j  would 
be  to  make  the  weaker  cause  the  more  efficient,  which  is  manifestly 
absurd.     It  is  contrary  too  to  the  reason  of  the  case,  that  the  example 
and  association  of  persons  naturally  well  disposed,  should  produce  any 
other  effect  than  that  of  confirming  and  maturing  their  good  disposi 
tions ;  as  it  is  the  effect  of  example  and  association,  among  persons  of 
similar  tastes  and  of  similar  pursuits,  to  confirm  and  improve  the  habit 
which  gives  rise  to  them.     As  little  plausibility  is  there  in  the  opinion 


208  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

which  would  account  for  this  general  corruption  from  bad  education. — 
Mow,  if  man  in  all  ages  had  been  rightly  affected  in  his  moral  inclina- 
tions,  did  a  course  of  deleterious  education  commence  ?  How,  if  com. 
menced,  came  it,  that  what  must  have  been  so  abhorrent  to  a  virtuously 
disposed  community  was  not  arrested,  and  a  better  system  of  instruc- 
tion introduced  ?  But  the  fact  itself  may  be  denied,  as  the  worst  edu- 
cation inculcates  a  virtue  above  the  general  practice,  and  no  course  of 
education  was  ever  adopted  purposely  to  encourage  immorality.  In  the 
Scriptures  alone  we  find  a  cause  assigned  which  accounts  for  the  phe- 
nomenon, and  we  are  bound  therefore  by  the  rules  of  philosophy  itself 
to  admit  it.  It  is  this,  that  man  is  by  nature  prone  to  evil ;  and  as  it 
would  be  highly  unreasonable  to  suppose,  that  this  disposition  was  im- 
planted in  him  by  his  benevolent  and  holy  Maker,  we  are  equally  bound 
in  reason  to  admit  the  Scripture  solution  of  the  fall  of  the  human 
race  from  a  higher  and  better  state. 

A  third  view  of  the  condition  of  man  contained  in  the  Scriptures,  is, 
that  he  is  not  only  under  the  Divine  authority,  but  that  the  government 
of  heaven  as  to  him  is  of  a  mixed  character ;  that  he  is  treated  with 
severity  and  with  kindness  also  ;  that  considered  both  as  corrupt  in  his 
nature  and  tendencies,  and  as  in  innumerable  instances  actually  offending, 
he  is  placed  under  a  rigidly  restraining  discipline,  to  meet  his  case  in 
the  first  respect,  and  under  correction  and  penal  dispensation  with  rela- 
tion to  the  latter.  On  the  other  hand,  as  he  is  an  object  beloved  by  the 
God  he  has  offended ;  a  being  for  whose  pardon  and  recovery  Divine 
me'rcy  has  made  provision  ;  moral  ends  are  connected  with  these  severi- 
ties, and  nature  and  providence  as  well  as  revelation  are  crowned  with 
instances  of  Divine  benevolence  to  the  sinning  race.  The  proof  of 
these  different  relations  of  man  to  God,  surrounds  us  in  that  admixture  of 
good  and  evil,  of  indulgence  and  restraint,  of  felicity  and  misery,  to  which 
he  is  so  manifestly  subject.  Life  is  felt  in  all  ordinary  circumstances 
to  be  a  blessing ;  but  it  is  short  and  uncertain,  subject  to  diseases  and 
accidents.  Many  enjoyments  fall  to  the  lot  of  men  ;  yet  with  the  majo- 
rity they  are  attained  by  means  of  great  and  exhausting  labours  of  the 
body  or  of  the  mind,  through  which  the  risks  to  health  and  life  are 
greatly  multiplied ;  or  they  are  accompanied  with  so  many  disappoint- 
ments, fears,  and  cares,  that  their  number  and  their  quality  are  greatly 
lessened.  The  globe  itself,  the  residence  of  man,  and  upon  whose  fer- 
tility, seasons,  exterior  surface,  and  interior  stratification  so  much  of  the 
external  felicity  of  man  depends,  bears  marks  of  a  mingled  kind  of  just 
and  merciful  government  suited  to  such  a  being  as  man  in  the  state  de- 
scribed in  the  Scriptures,  and  to  none  else.  It  cannot  be  supposed,  that 
if  inhabited  by  a  race  of  beings  perfectly  holy  and  in  the  full  enjoyment 
of  the  Divine  favour,  this  earth  would  be  subject  to  destructive  earth- 
quakes, volcanoes,  and  inundations ;  to  blights  and  dearths,  the  harbin- 


nnsr.j  theological  institutes,  209 

gers  of  famino ;  to  those  changes  in  the  atmosphere  which  induce  wide- 
wasting  epidemic  disorders ;  to  that  general  sterility  of  soil  which  ren- 
ders labour  necessary  to  such  a  degree,  as  fully  to  occupy  the  time  of 
the  majority  of  mankind,  prevent  them  from  engaging  in  pursuits  worthy 
an  intellectual  nature,  and  wear  down  their  spirits  ;  nor  that  the  metals  so 
necessary  for  man  in  civilized  life,  and,  in  many  countries,  the  material 
of  the  fire  by  which  cold  must  be  repelled,  food  prepared,  and  the  most 
important  arts  executed,  should  be  hidden  deep  in  the  bowels  of  the 
earth,  so  that  a  great  body  of  men  must  be  doomed  to  the  dangerous  and 
humbling  labour  of  raising  them  !  These  and  many  other  instances  (1) 
show  a  course  of  discipline  very  incongruous  with  the  most  enlightened 
views  of  the  Divine  character,  if  man  be  considered  as  an  innocent  bet- 
ing. On  the  contrary,  that  he  is  under  an  unmixed  penal  administra- 
tion, is  contradicted  by  the  facts,  that  the  earth  yet  yields  her  increase 
ordinarily  to  industry  ;  that  the  destructive  convulsions  of  nature  arc- 
but  occasional  ;  and  that,  generally,  the  health  of  the  human  race  pre* 
dominates  over  sickness,  and  their  animal  enjoyments  over  positive 
misery.  To  those  diverse  relations  of  man  to  God,  as  stated  in  the  Bible; 
the  contrarieties  of  nature  and  providence  bearN  an  exact  adaptation. 
Assume  man  to  be  any  thing  else  than  what  is  represented  in  Scripture-, 
they  would  be  discordant  and  inexplicable  ;  in  this  view  they  harmonize. 
Man  is  neither  innocent  nor  finally  condemned — he  is  fallen  and  guiky, 
but  not  excluded  from  the  compassion  and  care  and  benignity  of  his 
God. 

The  next  leading  doctrine  of  Christianity  is  the  restoration  of  man  to 
the  Divine  favour,  through  the  merits  of  the  vicarious  and  sacrificial 
death  of  Christ,  the  incarnate  Son  of  God.  To  this  many  objec- 
tions have  been  offered ;  but,  on  the  other  hand,  many  important  rea- 
sons for  such  a  procedure  have  been  overlooked.  The  rational  evidence 
of  this  doctrine,  we  grant,  is  partial  and  limited ;  but  it  will  be  recol- 
lected, that  it  has  been  already  proved,  that  the  authority  and  truth  of  a 
doctrine  arc  not  thereby  affected.  It  is  indeed  not  unreasonable  to  sup- 
pose, that  the  evidence  of  the  fitness  and  necessity  of  such  a  doctrine 
should  be  to  us  obscure.  "The  reason  of  the  thing,"  says  Bishop  But- 
ler, "  and  the  whole  analogy  of  nature  should  teach  us,  not  to  expect  to 
have  the  like  information  concerning  the  Divine  conduct,  as  concerning 
our  own  duty"  On  whatever  terms  God  had  been  pleased  to  offer  for- 
giveness to  his  creatures,  if  any  other  had  been  morally  possible,  it  is 
not  to  be  supposed  that  all  the  reasons  of  his  conduct,  which  must  of 
course  respect  the  very  principles  of  his  government  in  general,  extend- 
ing not  only  to  man,  but  to  other  beings,  could  have  been  explained  ; 

(1)  See  the  argument  largely  and  ingeniously  exhibited  in  Gisborj  E'a  Twti- 
tnony  of  Nat.  Theol.  &c. 

Vol.  I.  14 


210  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

and  certain  it  is,  that  those  to  whom  the  benefit  was  offered  would  have 
had  no  right  to  require  it. 

The  Christian  doctrine  of  atonement  as  a  necessary  merciful  interpo- 
sition, is  grounded  upon  the  liability  of  man  to  punishment  in  another 
life,  for  sins  committed  against  the  law  of  God  in  this ;  and  against  this 
view  of  the  future  prospects  of  mankind  there  can  lie  no  objection  of 
weight.  Men  are  capable  of  committing  sin,  and  sin  is  productive  of 
misery  and  disorder.  These  positions  cannot  be  denied.  That  to  vio- 
late the  laws  of  God  and  to  despise  his  authority  are  not  light  crimes, 
is  clear  from  considering  them  in  their  general  effect  upon  society,  and 
upon  the  world.  Remove  from  the  human  race  all  the  effects  produced 
by  vice,  direct  and  indirect ;  all  the  inward  and  outward  miseries  and 
calamities  which  are  entirely  evitable  by  mankind,  and  which  they  wil- 
fully bring  upon  themselves  and  others,  and  scarcely  a  sigh  would  be 
heaved,  or  a  groan  heard,  except  those  extorted  by  natural  evils,  (small 
comparatively  in  number)  throughout  the  whole  earth.  The  great  sum 
of  human  misery  is  the  effect  of  actual  offence  ;  and  as  it  is  a  principle 
in  the  wisest  and  most  perfect  human  legislation  to  estimate  the  guilt 
of  individual  acts  by  their  general  tendency,  and  to  proportion  the  pun- 
ishment to  them  under  that  consideration,  the  same  reason  of  the  case 
is  in  favour  of  this  principle,  as  found  in  Scripture ;  and  thus  consider- 
ed, the  demerit  of  the  sins  of  an  individual  against  God  becomes  incal- 
culable. Nor  is  there  any  foundation  to  suppose,  that  the  punishment 
assigned  to  sin  by  the  judicial  appointment  of  the  Supreme  Governor, 
is  confined  to  the  present  life  ;  for  before  we  can  determine  that,  we 
must  be  able  to  estimate  the  demerit  of  an  act  of  wilful  transgression  in 
its  principle,  habits,  and  influence,  which,  as  parties  implicated,  we  are 
not  in  a  state  of  feeling  or  judgment  to  attempt,  were  the  subject  more 
within  our  grasp.  But  the  obvious  reason  of  the  case  is  in  favour  of 
the  doctrine  of  future  punishment ;  for  not  only  is  there  an  unequal  ad- 
ministration of  punishments  in  the  present  life,  so  that  many  eminent 
offenders  pass  through  the  present  state  without  any  visible  manifesta- 
tion of  the  Divine  displeasure  against  their  conduct,  but  there  are  strong 
and  convincing  proofs  that  we  are  placed  in  a  state  of  trial,  which  con- 
tinues throughout  life,  and  the  result  of  which  can  only  be  known,  and 
consequently  we  ourselves  can  only  become  subjects  of  final  reward  or 
punishment,  after  existence  in  this  world  terminates.  From  the  circum- 
stances we  have  just  enumerated  to  indicate  the  kind  of  government 
which  is  exercised  over  the  human  race,  we  must  conclude,  that,  allow- 
ing the  Supreme  Governor  to  be  wise  and  just,  benevolent  and  holy, 
men  are  neither  treated  as  innocont  nor  as  incorrigibly  corrupt.  Now, 
what  reason  can  possibly  be  given  for  this  mixed  kind  of  administration, 
but  that  the  moral  improvement  of  man  is  the  object  intended  by  it  ? 
The  severity  discountenances  and   lestrains  vice ;  the  annexation   of 


FIRST.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  211 

inward  felicity  in  all  cases,  (and  outward  in  all  those  instances  in  which 
the  result  depends  upon  the  conduct  of  the  individual,)  to  holy  habits 
and  acts,  recommends  and  sanctions  them,  and  allures  to  the  use  of 
those  means  which  God  has  provided  for  enabling  us  to  form  and 
practise  them.  No  other  final  causes,  it  would  appear,  can  be  assigned 
for  the  peculiar  manner  in  which  we  are  governed  in  the  present  life ; 
and  if  the  deterring  and  correcting  severity  on  the  one  hand,  and  the 
alluring  and  instructive  kindness  on  the  other,  which  mark  the  Divine 
administration,  continue  throughout  life  ;  if,  in  every  period  of  his  life 
here,  man  is  capable,  by  the  use  of  the  prescribed  means,  of  forming  new 
habits  and  renouncing  old  ones,  and  thus  of  accomplishing  the  purposes 
of  the  moral  discipline  under  which  he  is  placed,  then  is  he  in  a  state 
of  trial  throughout  life,  and  if  so,  he  is  accountable  for  the  whole  course 
of  his  life  ;  and  his  ultimate  reward  or  punishment  must  be  in  a  state 
subsequent  to  the  present. 

It  is  also  the  doctrine  of  Scripture,  that  this  future  punishment  of  the 
incorrigible  shall  be  final  and  unlimited;  another  consideration  of  great 
importance  in  considering  the  doctrine  of  atonement.  This  is  a  monitory 
doctrine  which  a  revelation  only  could  unfold ;  but  being  made,  it  has 
no  inconsiderable  degree  of  rational  evidence.  It  supposes,  it  is  true, 
that  no  future  trial  shall  be  allowed  to  man,  the  present  having  been 
neglected  and  abused  ;  and  to  this  there  is  much  analogy  in  the  constant 
procedures  of  the  Divine  government  in  the  present  life.  When  many 
checks  and  admonitions  from  the  instructions  of  the  wise,  and  the  exam- 
pies  of  the  froward,  have  been  disregarded,  poverty  and  sickness,  infamy 
and  death,  ensue,  in  a  thousand  cases  which  the  observation  of  every 
man  will  furnish  ;  the  trial  of  an  individual,  which  is  to  issue  in  his  pre- 
sent happiness  or  misery,  is  terminated ;  and  so  far  from  its  being 
renewed  frequently,  in  the  hope  of  his  finally  profiting  by  a  bitter  expe- 
rience, advantages,  and  opportunities,  once  thrown  away,  can  never  be 
recalled.  There  is  nothing  therefore  contrary  to  the  obvious  principles 
of  the  Divine  government  as  manifested  in  this  life,  in  the  doctrine  which 
confines  the  space  of  man's  highest  and  most  solemn  probation  within 
certain  limits,  and  beyond  them  cutting  off  all  his  hope.  But  let  this 
subject  be  considered  by  the  light  thrown  upon  it  by  the  circumstance, 
that  the  nature  of  man  is  immortal.  With  those  who  deny  this  to  be  the 
prerogative  of  the  thinking  principle  in  man,  it  would  be  trifling  to  hold 
this  argument ;  but  with  those  who  do  not,  the  consideration  of  the  sub- 
ject under  this  view  is  important. 

The  existence  of  man  is  never  to  cease.  It  follows  then  from  this, 
that  either  the  future  trials  to  be  allowed  to  those  who  in  the  present 
life  have  been  incorrigible,  are  to  be  limited  in  number,  or,  should  they 
successively  fail,  are  to  be  repeated  for  ever.  If  the  latter,  there  can 
be  nc  ultimate  judgment,  no  punishment  or  reward  ;  and  consequently 


212  THEOLOGICAL   INSTITUTES.  [PART 

the  Divine  government  as  implying  these,  (and  this  we  know  it  noes, 
from  what  takes  piace  in  the  present  life,)  must  be  annihilated.     If  this 
cannot  be  maintained,  is  there  sufficient  reason  to  conclude,  that  all  to 
whom  trial  after  trial  is  supposed  to  be  afforded  in  new  and  varied  cir- 
cumstances, in  order  to  multiply  the  probabilities,  so  to  speak,  of  their 
final  recovery  from  rebellion,  will  be  at  length  reclaimed  ?     Before  this 
can  be  answered,  it  must  be  recollected,  that  a  state  of  suffering  which 
would  compel  obedience,  if  we  should  suppose  mere  suffering  capable 
of  producing  this  effect,  or  an  exertion  of  influence  upon  the  understand- 
ing and  will  which  shall  necessitate  a  definite  choice,  is  neither  of  them 
to  be  assumed  as  entering  into  the  circumstances  of  any  new  state  of 
trial.     Every  such  future  trial,  to  be  probationary  at  all,  that  is,  in  order 
to  bring  out  the  existence  of  a  new  moral  principle,  and  by  voluntary 
acts  to  prove  it,  must  substantially  be  like  the  present,  though  its  circum- 
stances may  vary.     Vice  must  have  its  allurements ;  virtue  must  rise 
from  self  denial,  and  be  led  into  the  arena  to  struggle  with  difficulty ; 
many  present  interests  and  pleasures  must  be  seen  in  connection  with 
vice ;  the  rewards  of  obedience  must,  as  now,  be  not  only  more  refined 
than  mere  sense  can  be  gratified  with,  but  also  distant :  the  mind  must 
be  capable  of  error  in  its  moral  estimate  of  things,  through  the  influence 
of  the  senses  and  passions  ;  and  so  circumstanced,  that  those  erroneous 
views  shall  only  be  prevented  or  corrected  by  watchfulness,  and  a  dili- 
gent application  to  meditation,  prayer,  and  the  use  of  those  means  of 
information  on  moral  subjects  which  almighty  God  may  have  put  within 
their  reach.     We  have  no  right  in  this  argument  to  imagine  to  our- 
selves a  future  condition  where  the  influence  of  every  circumstance  will 
be  directed  to   render  vice  most  difficult  to  commit,  and  virtue  most 
difficult  to  avoid  ;  for  this  would  not  be  a  state  of  trial :  and  if  in  this 
present  life,  men  have  obstinately  resisted  all  admonitions  from  heaven  ; 
obdurated  themselves  against  all  the  affecting  displays  of  the  Divine  kind- 
ness, and  the  deterring  manifestations  of  the  Divine  majesty  ;  it  is  most 
reasonable  to  conclude,  that  a  part  of  them  at  least  would  abuse  suc- 
cessive trials,  and  frustrate  their  intention,  by  attachment  to  present  and 
sensual  gratification.     What  then  is  to  become  of  them  ?     If  we  admit 
a  moral  government  of  rational  creatures  at  all,  their  probation  cannot 
be  eternal,  for  that  leads  to  no   result ;  if  probation  be  appointed,   it 
implies  accountability,  a  judicial  decision,  and  that  judicial  decision,  in 
the  case  of  the  incorrigible,  punishment.     Whenever  then  the  trial,  or 
the  series  of  trials,  terminates  as  to  these  immortal  beings,  the  subse- 
quent punishment,  of  what  kind  soever  it  may  be,  must  be  eternal.    This 
doctrine  of  Scripture  rests  therefore  upon  others,  of  which  the  rational 
evidence  is  abundant  and  convincing ; — that  almighty  God  exercises  a 
moral  government  over  his  creatures ;  that  the  present  life  is  a  state  of 
mora]   discipline  and  trial ;  and  that  man  is  immortal.     If  these  are 


TIRST.]  THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES.  213 

allowed,  the  eternal  duration  of  future  punishments,  as  to  the  obstinately 
wicked,  must  follow  ;  and  its  accordance  with  the  principles  just  men- 
tioned, is  its  rational  evidence. 

That  atonement  for  the  sins  of  men  which  was  made  by  the  death  of 
Christ,  is  represented  in  the  Christian  system  as  the  means  by  which 
mankind  may  be  delivered  from  this  awful  catastrophe — from  judicial 
inflictions  of  the  displeasure  of  a  Governor,  whose  authority  has  been 
contemned,  and  whose  will  has  been  resisted,  which  shall  know  no  miti- 
gation in  their  degree,  nor  bound  to  their  duration;  and  if  an  end, 
supremely  great  and  benevolent,  can  commend  any  procedure  to  us.  the 
Scriptural  doctrine  of  atonement  commends  this  kind  of  appeal  to  our 
attention.  This  end  it  professes  to  accomplish,  by  means  which,  with 
respect  to  the  Supreme  Governor  himself,  preserve  his  character  from 
mistake,  and  maintain  the  authority  of  his  government ;  and  with  respect 
to  man,  give  him  the  strongest  possible  reason  for  hope,  and  render 
more  favourable  the  circumstances  of  his  earthly  probation.  These  are 
considerations  which  so  manifestly  show,  from  its  own  internal  constitu- 
tion, the  superlative  importance  and  excellence  of  Christianity,  that  it 
would  be  exceedingly  criminal  to  overlook  them. 

How  sin  may  be  forgiven  without  leading  to  such  misconceptions  ot 
the  Divine  character  as  would  encourage  disobedience,  and  thereby 
weaken  the  influence  of  the  Divine  government,  must  be  considered  as 
a  problem  of  very  difficult  solution.  A  government  which  admitted  no 
forgiveness,  would  sink  the  guilty  to  despair  ;  a  government  which  never 
punishes  offence,  is  a  contradiction — it  cannot  exist.  Not  to  punish,  is 
to  dissolve  authority  ;  to  punish  without  mercy,  is  to  destroy,  and,  where 
all  are  guilty,  to  make  the  destruction  universal.  That  we  cannot  sin 
with  impunity,  is  a  matter  determined.  The  Ruler  of  the  world  is  not 
careless  of  the  conduct  of  his  creatures ;  for  that  penal  consequences 
are  attached  to  offence,  is  not  a  subject  of  argument,  but  is  made  evident 
from  daily  observation  of  the  events  and  circumstances  of  the  present 
life.  It  is  a  principle,  therefore,  already  laid  down,  that  the  authority 
of  God  must  be  preserved;  and  it  ought  to  be  observed,  that  in  that 
kind  of  administration  which  restrains  evil  by  penalty,  and  encourages 
obedience  by  favour  and  hope,  we  and  all  moral  creatures  arc  the  inte- 
rested parties,  and  not  the  Divine  Governor  himself,  whom,  because  of 
his  independent  and  efficient  nature,  our  transgressions  cannot  injure. 
The  reasons  therefore  which  compel  him  to  maintain  his  authority,  do 
not  terminate  in  himself.  If  he  becomes  a  part)  against  offenders,  it  is 
for  our  sake,  and  for  the  sake  of  the  moral  order  of  the  universe,  to 
which  sin,  if  encouraged  by  a  negligent  administration,  and  by  entire  or 
frequent  impunity,  would  be  the  source  of  endless  disorder  and  misery : 
and  if  the  granting  of  pardon  to  ofl'ence  be  strongly  and  even  severely 
guarded,  we  are  to  refer  it  to  the  moral  necessity  of  the  case  as  arising 


2i4  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

out  of  the  general  welfare  of  accountable  creatures,  liable  to  the  deep 
evil  of  sin,  and  not  to  any  reluctance  on  the  part  of  our  Maker  to  for- 
give, much  less  to  any  thing  vindictive  in  his  nature, — charges  which 
have  been  most  inconsiderately  and  unfairly  brought  against  the  Chris- 
tian doctrine  of  Christ's  vicarious  sufferings.  If  it  then  be  true,  that  the 
relief  of  offending  man  from  future  punishment,  and  his  restoration  to 
the  Divine  favour,  ought  for  the  interests  of  mankind  themselves,  and 
for  the  instruction  and  caution  of  other  beings,  to  be  so  bestowed,  that 
no  license  shall  be  given  to  offence  ;  that  God  himself,  while  he  mani- 
fests his  compassion,  should  not  appear  less  just,  less  holy,  than  the 
maintenance  of  an  efficient  and  even  awful  authority  demands  ;  that  his 
commands  shall  be  felt  to  be  as  compelling,  and  that  disobedience  shall 
as  truly,  though  not  so  unconditionally,  subject  us  to  the  deserved 
penalty,  as  though  no  hope  of  forgiveness  had  been  exhibited,  we  ask, 
on  what  scheme,  save  that  which  is  developed  in  the  New  Testament, 
these  necessary  conditions  are  provided  for?  Necessary  they  are, 
unless  we  contend  for  a  license  and  an  impunity  which  shall  annul  the 
efficient  control  of  the  universe,  a  point  which  no  reasonable  man  will 
contend  for ;  and  if  not,  then  he  must  allow  an  internal  evidence  of  the 
truth  of  the  doctrine  of  Scripture,  which  makes  the  offer  of  pardon  con- 
sequent only  upon  the  securities  we  have  before  mentioned.  If  it  be 
said,  that  sin  may  be  pardoned  in  the  exercise  of  the  Divine  preroga- 
tive, the  reply  is,  that  if  this  prerogative  were  exercised  toward  a  part  of 
mankind  only,  the  passing  by  of  the  others  would  be  with  difficulty 
reconciled  to  the  Divine  character ;  and  if  the  benefit  were  extended 
to  all,  government  would  be  at  an  end.  This  scheme  of  bringing  men 
within  the  exercise  of  mercy,  does  not  therefore  meet  the  obvious  diffi- 
culty of  the  case  ;  nor  is  it  improved  by  confining  the  act  of  grace  only 
to  repentant  criminals.  For  in  the  immediate  view  of  danger,  what 
offender;  surrounded  with  the  wreck  of  former  enjoyments,  feeling  the 
vanity  of  guilty  pleasures,  now  past  for  ever,  and  beholding  the  approach 
of  the  delayed,  but  threatened,  penal  visitation,  but  would  repent  ?  Were 
this  principle  to  regufate  human  governments,  every  criminal  would  es- 
cape, and  judicial  forms  would  become  a  subject  for  ridicule.  Nor  is 
it  the  principle  which  the  Divine  Being  in  his  conduct  to  men  in  the 
present  state  acts  upon,  though  in  this  world  punishments  are  not  final 
and  absolute.  Repentance  does  not  restore  health  injured  by  intempe- 
rance, property  wasted  by  profusion,  or  character  once  stained  by  dis- 
honourable practices.  If  repentance  alone  can  secure  pardon,  then  all 
must  be  pardoned,  and  government  dissolved,  as  in  the  case  of  forgive- 
ness by  the  exercise  of  mere  prerogative ;  if  a  selection  be  made,  then 
different  and  discordant  principles  of  government  are  introduced  into  the 
Divine  administration,  which  is  a  derogatory  supposition. 

To  avoid  the  force  of  these  obvious  difficulties,  some  have  addea 


FIRST.]  THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES.  215 

reformation  to  repentance,  and  would  restrain  forgiveness 'to  those  only, 
who  to  their  penitence  add  a  course  of  future  obedience  to  the  Divine 
law.  In  this  opinion  a  concession  of  importance  is  made  in  favour  of 
the  doctrine  of  atonement  as  stated  in  the  Scriptures.  For  we  ask,  why 
an  act  of  grace  should  be  thus  restricted  ?  Is  not  the  only  reason  this, 
that  every  one  sees,  that  to  pardon  offence  either  on  mere  prerogative, 
or  on  the  condition  of  repentance,  would  annul  every  penalty,  and  con- 
sequently encourage  vice  ?  The  principle  assumed  then  is,  that  vice  ought 
not  to  be  encouraged  by  an  unguarded  exercise  of  the  Divine  mercy ; 
that  the  authority  of  government  ought  to  be  upheld  ;  that  almighty  God 
ought  not  to  appear  indifferent  to  human  actions,  nor  otherwise  than  as 
a  God  "  haling  iniquity"  and  "  loving  righteousness."  Now  precisely 
on  these  principles  does  the  Christian  doctrine  of  atonement  rest.  It 
carries  them  higher ;  it  teaches  that  other  means  have  been  adopted 
to  secure  the  object ;  but  the  ends  proposed  are  the  same ;  and  thus  to 
the  principle  on  which  that  great  doctrine  rests,  the  objector  can  take 
no  exception — that  point  he  has  surrendered,  and  must  confine  himself 
to  a  comparison  of  the  efficiency  of  the  respective  modes,  by  which  the  pur 
poses  of  moral  government  may  be  answered  in  the  exercise  of  mercy  to 
the  guilty  in  his  own  system,  and  in  that  of  Christianity.  We  shall  not, 
in  order  to  prove  "  the  wisdom"  as  well  as  the  grace  of  the  doctrine  of 
the  Bible  on  this  subject,  press  our  opponent  with  the  fact,  important  as 
it  is,  that  in  the  light  vouchsafed  unto  us  into  the  rules  of  the  government 
of  God  over  men  with  reference  to  the  present  state  merely,  we  see  no 
reason  to  conclude  any  thing  with  certainly  as  to  the  efficacy  of  re- 
formation. A  change  of  conduct  does  not,  any  more  than  repentance, 
repair  the  mischiefs  of  former  misconduct.  Even  the  sobriety  of  the 
reformed  man  does  not  always  restore  health  ;  and  the  industry  and 
economy  of  the  formerly  negligent  and  wasteful,  repair  not  the  losses  of 
extravagance.  Nor  is  it  necessary  to  dwell  upon  the  consideration 
which  this  theory  involves  as  to  all  the  principles  of  government  established 
among  men,  which  in  flagrant  cases  never  suspend  punishment  in  antici- 
pation of  a  change  of  conduct ;  but  which  in  the  infliction  of  penalty 
look  steadily  to  the  crime  actually  committed,  and  to  the  necessity  of 
vindicating  the  violated  majesty  of  the  laws.  The  argument  might 
indeed  be  left  here ;  but  we  go  farther  and  show,  that  the  reformation 
anticipated  is  ideal,  because  it  is  impracticable. 

To  make  this  clear  it  must  be  recollected,  that  they  who  oppose  this 
theory  of  human  reconciliation  to  God,  to  that  of  the  Scriptures,  leave 
out  of  it  not  only  the  vicarious  sacrifice  of  Christ,  but  other  important 
doctrines ;  and  especially  that  agency  of  the  Holy  Spirit  which  awakens 
the  thoughtless  to  consideration,  and  prompts  and  assists  their  efforts  to 
attain  a  higher  character,  and  to  commence  a  new  course  of  conduct. 
Man  is  therefore  left,  unassisted,  and  uninfluenced,  to  his  own  endeavours, 


216  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  |PA.KT 

and  in  the  peculiar,  unalleviated  circumstances  of  his  actual  moral  state. 
What  that  state  is,  we  have  already  seen.  It  has  been  argued  that  no- 
thing  can  account  for  the  practical  corruption  of  mankind,  but  a  moral 
taint  in  our  hearts,  a  propensity  of  nature  to  evil  and  not  to  good ;  and  that 
every  other  mode  of  accounting  for  the  moral  phenomena  which  the  history 
of  man  and  daily  experience  present,  is  inconclusive  and  contradictory. 
How  then  is  this  supposed  reformation  to  commence  ?  We  do  not  say,  the 
exchange  of  one  vice  for  another,  that  specious  kind  of  reformation  by 
which  many  are  deceived,  for  the  objector  ought  to  have  the  credit  of 
intending  a  reformation  which  implies  love  to  the  purity  of  the  Divine  com- 
mands  ;  cordial  respect  for  the  authority  of  our  Maker  ;  and  not  partial,  but 
universal  obedience.  But  if  the  natural,  unchecked  disposition  of  the  mind 
is  to  evil,  and  supernatural  assistance  be  disallowed,  "  who  can  bring  a 
clean  thing  out  of  an  unclean  V  To  natural  propension,  we  are  also  to 
add  in  this  case,  as  reformation  is  the  matter  in  question,  the  power 
of  habit,  proverbially  difficult  to  break,  though  man  is  not  in  fact  in 
the  unassisted  condition  which  the  error  now  opposed  supposes.  The 
whole  of  this  theory  assumes  human  nature  to  be  what  it  is  not ; 
and  a  delusive  conclusion  must,  therefore,  necessarily  result.  If  man 
be  totally  corrupt,  the  only  principles  from  which  reformation  can  pro 
ceed  do  not  exist  in  his  nature ;  and  if  we  allow  no  more  than  that  the 
propensity  to  evil  in  him  is  stronger  than  the  propensity  to  good,  it  is 
absurd  to  suppose,  that  if  opposing  propensities  the  weakest  should  resist 
the  most  powerful, — that  the  stream  of  the  rivulet  should  force  its  way 
against  the  tides  of  the  ocean.  The  reformation,  therefore,  which  is  to 
atone  for  his  vices,  is  impracticable. 

The  question  proposed  abstractedly,  How  may  mercy  be  extended  to 
offending  creatures,  the  subjects  of  the  Divine  government,  without, 
encouraging  vice,  by  lowering  the  righteous  and  holy  character  of  God,  and 
the  authority  of  his  government,  in  the  maintenance  of  which  the  whole  uni- 
verse  of  beings  are  interested  ?  is  therefore  at  once  one  of  the  most  import, 
ant  and  one  of  the  most  difficult  which,  can  employ  the  human  mind.  None 
of  the  theories  which  have  been  opposed  to  Christianity,  afford  a  satisfac- 
tory solution  of  the  problem.  They  assume  principles  either  destructive 
to  moral  government,  or  which  cannot,  in  the  circumstances  of  man,  be 
acted  upon.  The  only  answer  is  found  in  the  Holy  Scriptures.  They 
mlone  show,  and  indeed  they  alone  profess  to  show,  how  God  may  be 
just,  and  yet  the  justifer  of  the  ungodly.  Other  schemes  show  how  he 
may  be  merciful ;  but  the  difficulty  does  not  lie  there.  This  meets  it, 
by  declaring  "  the  righteousness  of  God,"  at  the  same  time  that  it  pro- 
claims  his  mercy.  The  voluntary  sufferings  of  an  incarnate,  Divine 
person,  ufor  us,"  in  our  room  and  stead,  magnify  the  justice  of  God  ; 
■display  his  hatred  to  sin  ;  proclaim  "  the  exceeding  sinfulness"  of  trans- 
gression, by  the  deep  and  painful  sufferings  of  the  substitute;  warn  the 


;V 


FIRST.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  17 

persevering  offender  of  the  terribleness  as  well  as  the  certainty  of  his 
punishment ;  and  open  the  gates  of  salvation  to  every  penitent.  It  is  a 
part  of  the  same  Divine  plan  to  engage  the  influence  of  the  Holy  Spirit, 
to  awaken  that  penitence,  and  to  lead  the  wandering  soul  back  to  him- 
self; to  renew  the  fallen  nature  of  man  in  righteousness,  at  the  moment 
he  is  justified  through  faith,  and  to  place  him  in  circumstances  in  which 
he  may  henceforth  "  walk  not  after  the  flesh  but  after  the  Spirit."  All 
the  ends  of  government  are  here  answered.  No  license  is  given  to  offence  ; 
the  moral  law  is  unrepealed  ;  the  day  of  judgment  is  still  appointed ; 
future  and  eternal  punishments  still  display  their  awful  sanctions  ;  a  new 
and  singular  display  of  the  awful  purity  of  the  Divine  character  is 
afforded  ;  yet  pardon  is  offered  to  all  who  seek  it ;  and  the  whole  world 
may  be  saved ! 

With  such  evidence  of  suitableness  to  the  case  of  mankind ;  under 
such  lofty  views  of  connection  with  the  principles  and  ends  of  moral 
government,  does  the  doctrine  of  the  atonement  present  itself.     But 
other  important  considerations  are  not  wanting,  to  mark  the  united  wis- 
dom and  goodness  of  that  method  of  extending  mercy  to  the  guiky,  which 
Christianity  teaches  us  to  have  been  actually  and  exclusively  adopted. 
It  is  rendered  indeed  "  worthy  of  all  acceptation,"  by  the  circumstance 
of  its  meeting  the  difficulties  we  have  just  dwelt  upon, — difficulties  which 
could  not  otherwise  have  failed  to  make  a  gloomy  impression  upon  every 
offender  awakened  to  a  sense  of  his  spiritual  danger ;  but  it  must  be 
very  inattentively  considered,  if  it  does  not  farther  commend  itself  to  us, 
by  not  only  removing  the  apprehensions  we  might  feel  as  to  the  justice 
of  the  Divine  Lawgiver,  but  as  exalting  him  in  our  esteem  as  "  the  right- 
eous Lord,  who  loveth  righteousness,"  who  surrendered  his  beloved  Son  to 
suffering  and  death,  that  the  influence  of  moral  goodness  might  not  be 
weakened  in  the  hearts  of  his  creatures — as  a  God  of  love,  affording 
in  this  instance  a  view  of  the  tenderness  and  benignity  of  his  nature 
infinitely  more  impressive  and  affecting  than  any  abstract  description 
could  convey,  or  than  any  act  of  creating  and  providential  power  and 
grace  could  furnish,  and  therefore  most  suitable  to  subdue  that  enmity 
which  had  unnaturally  grown  up  in  the  hearts  of  his  creatures,  and  which, 
when  corrupt,  they  so  easily  transfer  from  a  law  which  restrains  their 
inclination  to  the  Lawgiver  himself.     If  it  be  important  to  us  to  know 
the  extent  and  reality  of  our  danger,  by  the  death  of  Christ  it  is  displayed, 
not  in  description,  but  in  the  most  impressive  action ;  if  it  be  important 
that  we  should  have  assurance  of  the  Divine  placability  toward  us,  it 
here  received  a  demonstration  incapable  of  greater  certainty  :  if  gratitude 
is  the  most  powerful  motive  of  future  obedience,  and  one  which  renders 
command  on  the  one  part,  and  active  service  on  the  other,  "  not  grievous 
but  joyous,"  the  recollection  of  such  obligations  as  the  "  love  of  Christ'' 
has  laid  us  under,  is  a  perpetual  spring  to  this  energetic  affection,  ar  d 


218  THEOLOGICAL   INSTITUTES.  [PAKT 

will  be  the  means  of  raising  it  to  higher  and  more  delightful  activity  for 
ever.  All  that  can  most  powerfully  illustrate  the  united  tenderness  and 
awful  majesty  of  God,  and  the  odiousness  of  sin ;  all  that  can  win  back 
the  heart  of  man  to  his  Maker  and  Lord,  and  render  future  obedience  a 
matter  of  affection  and  delight  as  well  as  duty  ;  all  that  can  extinguish 
the  angry  and  malignant  passions  of  man  to  man  ;  all  that  can  inspire 
a  mutual  benevolence ;  and  dispose  to  a  self-denying  charity  for  the 
benefit  of  others  ;  all  that  can  arouse  by  hope  or  tranquillize  by  faith,  is 
to  be  found  in  the  vicarious  death  of  Christ,  and  the  principles  and  pur- 
poses for  which  it  was  endured. 

"  Ancient  history  tells  us  of  a  certain  king  who  made  a  law  against 
adultery,  in  which  it  was  enacted  that  the  offender  should  be  punished 
by  the  loss  of  both  eyes.  The  very  first  offender  was  his  own  son. 
The  case  was  most  distressing  ;  for  the  king  was  an  affectionate  father, 
as  well  as  a  just  magistrate.  After  much  deliberation  and  inward  struggle, 
he  finally  commanded  one  of  his  own  eyes  to  be  pulled  out  and  one  of 
his  son's.  It  is  easier  to  conceive  than  to  describe  what  must  have  been 
the  feelings  of  the  son  in  these  most  affecting  circumstances.  His 
offence  would  appear  to  him  in  a  new  light ;  it  would  appear  to  him,  not 
simply  as  connected  with  painful  consequences  to  himself,  but  as  the 
cause  of  a  father's  sufferings,  and  as  an  injury  to  a  father's  love.  If 
the  king  had  passed  over  the  law  altogether,  in  his  son's  favour,  he  would 
have  exhibited  no  regard  for  justice,  and  he  would  have  given  a  very 
inferior  proof  of  affection. 

"  If  we  suppose  that  the  happiness  of  the  young  man's  life  depended 
on  the  eradication  of  this  criminal  propensity,  it  is  not  easy  to  imagine 
how  the  king  could  more  wisely  or  more  effectually  have  promoted 
this  benevolent  object.  The  action  was  not  simply  a  correct  representa- 
tion of  the  king's  character, — it  also  contained  in  itself  an  appeal  most 
correctly  adapted  to  the  feelings  of  the  criminal.  \t  justified  the  king 
in  the  exercise  of  clemency ;  it  tranquillized  the  son's  mind,  as  being  a 
pledge  of  the  reality  and  sincerity  of  his  father's  gracious  purposes  toward 
him  ;  and  it  identified  the  object  of  his  esteem  with  the  object  of  his 
gratitude.  Mere  gratitude,  unattracted  by  an  object  of  moral  worth, 
could  never  have  stamped  an  impression  of  moral  worth  on  his  cha- 
racter ;  which  was  his  father's  ultimate  design.  We  might  suppose  the 
existence  of  this  same  character  without  its  producing  such  an  action  ; 
we  might  suppose  a  conflict  of  contending  feelings  to  be  carried  on  in 
the  mind  without  evidencing,  in  the  conduct  flowing  from  it,  the  full 
vehemence  of  the  conflict,  or  defining  the  adjustment  of  the  contending 
feelings  ;  but  we  cannot  suppose  any  mode  of  conduct  so  admirably  fitted 
to  impress  the  stamp  of  the  father's  character  on  the  mind  of  the  son,  or 
to  associate  the  love  of  right  and  the  abhorrence  of  wrong  with  the  most 
powerful  instincts  of  the  heart.     The  old  man  not  only  wished  to  act  in 


FIRST.]  THEOLOGICAL   INSTITUTES.  219 

perfect  consistency  with  his  own  views  of  duty,  hut  also  to  produce  a 
Salutary  effect  on  the  mind  of  his  son ;  and  it  is  the  full  and  effectual 
union  of  these  two  objects  which  forms  the  most  beautiful  and  striking 
part  of  this  remarkable  history. 

"  There  is  a  singular  resemblance  between  this  moral  exhibition,  and 
the  communication  which  God  has  been  pleased  to  make  of  himself  in 
the  Gospel.  We  cannot  but  love  and  admire  the  character  of  this  excellent 
prince,  although  we  ourselves  have  no  direct  interest  in  it ;  and  shall 
we  refuse  our  love  and  admiration  to  the  King  and  Father  of  the  human 
race,  who,  with  a  kindness  and  condescension  unutterable,  has,  in  call- 
ing his  wandering  children  to  return  to  duty  and  to  happiness,  presented 
to  each  of  us  a  like  aspect  of  tenderness  and  purity,  and  made  use  of 
an  argument  which  makes  the  most  direct  and  irresistible  appeal  to  the 
most  familiar,  and  at  the  same  time  the  most  powerful  principles  in  the 
heart  of  man  ? 

"  A  pardon  without  a  sacrifice,  could  have  made  but  a  weak  and  ob- 
scure appeal  to  the  understanding  or  the  heart.  It  could  not  have 
demonstrated  the  evil  of  sin ;  it  could  not  have  demonstrated  the  gra- 
ciousness  of  God  ;  and  therefore  it  could  not  have  led  man  either  to  hate 
sin  or  to  love  God.  If  the  punishment  as  well  as  the  criminality  of  .sin 
consists  in  an  opposition  to  the  character  of  God,  the  fullest  pardon  must 
be  perfectly  useless,  while  this  opposition  remains  in  the  heart ;  and  the 
substantial  usefulness  of  the  pardon  will  depend  upon  its  being  con- 
nected with  such  circumstances  as  may  have  a  natural  and  powerful 
tendency  to  remove  this  opposition,  and  create  a  resemblance.  The 
pardon  of  the  Gospel  is  connected  with  such  circumstances ;  for  the 
sacrifice  of  Christ  has  associated  sin  with  the  blood  of  a  benefactor,  as 
well  as  with  our  own  personal  sufferings, — and  obedience  with  the  dying 
entreaty  of  a  friend  breathing  out  a  tortured  life  for  us,  as  well  as  with 
our  own  unending  glory  in  his  blessed  society.  This  act,  like  that  in 
the  preceding  illustration,  justifies  God  as  a  lawgiver  in  dispensing  mercy 
to  the  guilty ;  it  gives  a  pledge  of  the  sincerity  and  reality  of  that 
mercy ;  and,  by  associating  principle  with  mercy,  it  identifies  the  object 
of  gratitude  with  the  object  of  esteem,  in  the  heart  of  the  sinner."  (2) 

Inseparably  connected  with  the  great  doctrine   of  atonement,  and 

(2)  "  Remarks  on  the  Internal  Evidence  of  the  Truth  of  Revealed  Religion  ; 
by  Thomas  Erskine,  Esq." — This  popular  and  interesting  volume  contains  many 
very  striking,  just,  and  eloquent  remarks  in  illustration  of  the  internal  evidence 
of  several  doctrines  of  the  New  Testament,  and  especially  of  that  of  the  atone, 
ment.  It  is  to  be  regretted,  however,  that  it  sets  out  from  a  false  principle,  and 
builds  so  much  truth  upon  the  sand.  "  The  sense  of  moral  obligation  is  the 
standard  to  which  reason  instructs  man  to  adjust  his  system  of  natural  religion" 
and  this  is  "the  test  by  which  he  is  to  try  all  pretensions  to  religion."  The 
principle  of  the  book  therefore  is  to  show  the  excellence  of  Christianity  from  its 
embodying  the  abstract  principles  of  natural  religion  in  intelligible  and  palpal. lo 
action — a  gratuitous  and  unsubstantial  foundation. 


220  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

adapted  to  the  new  circumstances  of  trial  in  which  the  human  race  was 
placed  in  consequence  of  the  lapse  of  our  first  parents,  is  the  doctrine 
of  the  influence  of  the  Holy  Spirit ;  and  this,  though  supposed  by  many 
to  be  farthest  removed  from  rational  evidence,  can  neither  be  opposed  by 
any  satisfactory  argument,  nor  is  without  an  obvious  reasonableness. 

The  Scriptures  represent  man  in  the  present  state  as  subject  not  only 
to  various  sensible  excitements  to  transgression ;  and  as  influenced  to 
resist  temptation  by  the  knowledge  of  the  law  of  God  and  its  sanctions, 
by  his  own  sense  of  right  and  duty,  and  by  the  examples  of  the  evils  of 
offence  which  surround  him ;  but  also  as  solicited  to  obedience  by  the 
influence  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  to  persevering  rebellion  by  the  seduc- 
tions of  evil  spirits. 

This  is  the  doctrine  of  revelation,  and  if  the  evidences  of  that  reve- 
lation can  be  disproved,  it  may  be  rejected  ;  if  not,  it  must  be  admitted, 
whether  any  argumentative  proof  can  be  offered  in  its  favour  or  not. 
That  it  is  not  unreasonable,  may  be  first  established. 

That  God,  who  made  us,  and  who  is  a  pure  Spirit,  cannot  have  im- 
mediate access  to  our  thoughts,  our  affections,  and  our  will,  it  would 
certainly  be  much  more  unreasonable  to  deny  than  to  admit ;  and  if  the 
great  and  universal  Spirit  possesses  this  power,  every  physical  objec- 
tion at  least  to  the  doctrine  in  question  is  removed,  and  finite  unbodied 
spirits  may  have  the  same  kind  of  access  to  the  mind  of  man,  though 
not  in  so  perfect  and  intimate  a  degree.  Before  any  natural  impossibi- 
lity can  be  urged  against  this  intercourse  of  spirit  with  spirit,  we  must 
know  what  no  philosopher,  however  deep  his  researches  into  the  causes 
of  the  phenomena  of  the  mind,  has  ever  professed  to  know — the  laws 
of  perception,  memory,  and  association.  We  can  suggest  thoughts  and 
reasons  to  each  other,  and  thus  mutually  influence  our  wills  and  affec- 
tions. We  employ  for  this  purpose  the  media  of  signs  and  words  ;  but 
to  contend,  that  these  are  the  only  media  through  which  thought  can  be 
conveyed  to  thought,  or  that  spiritual  beings  cannot  produce  the  same 
effects  immediately,  is  to  found  an  objection  wholly  upon  our  ignorance. 
All  the  reason  which  the  case,  considered  in  itself,  affords,  is  certainly 
in  favour  of  this  opinion.  We  have  access  to  each  other's  minds  ;  we 
can  suggest  thoughts,  raise  affections,  influence  the  wills  of  others ;  and 
analogy  therefore  favours  the  conclusion,  that,  though  by  different  and 
latent  means,  unbodied  spirits  have  the  same  access  to  each  other,  and 
to  us. 

If  no  physical  impossibility  lies  against  this  representation  of  the  cir- 
cumstances of  our  probation,  no  moral  reason  certainly  can  be  urged 
against  the  principle  itself,  which  makes  us  liable  to  the  contrary  solicit- 
ations of  other  beings.  That  God  our  heavenly  Father  should  be 
solicitous  for  our  welfare,  is  surely  to  be  admitted ;  and  that  there  may 
be  invisible  beings  who  are  anxious,  from  various  motives,  some  of 


FIRST.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  221 

which  may  be  conceived,  and  others  are  unknown,  to  entice  us  to  evil,  is 
made  probable  by  this,  that  among  men,  every  vicious  character  seeks 
a  fellowship  in  his  vices,  and  employs  various  arts  of  seduction,  even 
when  he  has  no  interest  in  success,  that  he  may  not  be  left  to  sin  alone. 
In  point  of  fact,  we  see  this  principle  of  moral  trial  in  constant  operation 
with  respect  to  our  fellow  creatures.  Who  is  not  counselled,  and  warned, 
and  entreated  by  the  good  ?  Who  is  not  invited  to  offence  by  the 
wicked?'  What  are  all  the  instructive,  enlightening,  and  influential  in- 
stitutions  which  good  and  benevolent  men  establish  and  conduct,  but 
means  by  which  others  may  be  drawn  and  influenced  to  what  is  right  ? 
and  what  are  all  the  establishments  and  devices  to  multiply  the  gratifi- 
cations and  pleasures  of  mankind,  but  means  employed  by  others  to 
encourage  religious  trifling,  and  indifference  to  things  devout  and  spi- 
ritual, and  often  to  seduce  to  vice  in  its  grossest  forms?  The  principle 
is  therefore  in  manifest  operation,  and  he  who  would  except  to  this  doc- 
trine of  Scripture,  must  also  except  to  the  Divine  government,  as  it  is 
manifested  in  the  facts  of  experience,  and  which  clearly  makes  it  a  cir- 
cumstance of  our  probation  in  this  world,  that  our  opinions,  affections, 
and  wills  should  be  subject  to  the  influence  of  others,  both  for  good  and  evil. 

By  reference  to  this  fact,  we  may  also  show  the  futility  of  the  objec- 
tion to  the  doctrine  of  supernatural  influence,  which  is  drawn  from  the 
free  agency  of  man.  The  Scriptures  do  not  teach  that  supernatural 
influence,  either  good  or  bad,  destroys  our  freedom  and  accountability. 
How  then,  it  is  asked,  is  the  one  to  be  reconciled  with  the  other? 
The  answer  is,  that  we  are  sure  they  are  not  incompatible,  because, 
though  we  may  be  strongly  influenced  and  solicited  to  good  or  evil  con- 
duct by  virtuous  or  vicious  persons ;  though  they  may  enforce  their 
respective  wishes  by  arguments,  or  persuasions,  or  hopes,  or  fears ; 
though  they  may  carefully  lead  us  into  circumstances  which  may  be 
most  calculated  to  undermine  or  to  corroborate  virtuous  resolutions ;  we 
are  yet  conscious  that  we  are  at  liberty  either  to  yield  or  to  resist ;  and 
on  this  consciousness,  equally  common  to  all,  is  founded  that  common 
judgment  of  the  conduct  of  those,  who,  though  carefully  well  advised,  or 
assiduously  seduced,  are  always* treated  as  free  agents  in  public  opinion, 
and  praised  or  censured  accordingly.  The  case  is  the  same  where  the 
influence  is  supernatural,  only  the  manner  in  which  it  is  applied  is  dif- 
ferent. In  one  it  operates  upon  the  springs  which  most  powerfully 
move  the  will  and  affections  from  without,  in  the  other  it  is  more  imme- 
diately  from  within ;  but  in  neither  case  is  it  to  be  supposed  that  any 
other  beings  can  will  or  choose  for  us.  The  modus  operandi  in  both 
cases  may  be  inexplicable  ;  but  while  the  power  of  influencing  our  choice 
may  belong  to  others,  the  power  of  choosing  is  exclusively  and  neces- 
sarily our  own. 

Since  therefore  no  reason  physical  or  moral  can  be  urged  against  the 


222  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  TpaRI 

doctrine  of  Divine  influence  ;  since  the  principle  on  which  it  is  founded, 
as  a  circumstance  in  our  trial  on  earth,  is  found  to  accord  entirely  with 
the  actual  arrangements  of  the  Divine  government  in  other  cases,  every 
thing  is  removed  which  might  obstruct  our  view  of  the  excellence  of 
this  encouraging  tenet  of  Divine  revelation.  The  moral  helplessness 
of  man  has  been  universally  felt,  and  universally  acknowledged.  To 
see  the  good  and  to  follow  the  evil,  has  been  the  complaint  of  all ;  and 
precisely  to  such  a  state  is  the  doctrine  of  Divine  influence 'adapted. 
As  the  atonement  of  Christ  stoops  to  the  judicial  destitution  of  man,  the 
promise  of  the  Holy  Spirit  meets  the  case  of  his  moral  destitution.  One 
finds  hin"  without  any  means  of  satisfying  the  claims  of  justice,  so  as  to 
exempt  him  from  punishment ;  the  other,  without  the  inclination  or  the 
strength  to  avail  himself  even  of  proclaimed  clemency,  and  offered  par- 
don, and  becomes  the  means  of  awakening  his  judgment,  and  exciting, 
and  assisting,  and  crowning  his  efforts  to  obtain  that  boon,  and  its  conse- 
quent blessings.  The  one  relieves  him  from  the  penalty,  the  other  from 
the  disease  of  sin  ;  the  former  restores  to  man  the  favour  of  God,  the 
other  renews  him  in  his  image. 

To  this  eminent  adaptation  of  the  doctrine  to  the  condition  of  man, 
we  may  add  the  affecting  view  which  it  unfolds  of  the  Divine  character. 
That  tenderness  and  compassion  of  God  to  his  offending  creatures ;  that 
reluctance  that  they  should  perish  ;  that  Divine  and  sympathizing  anx- 
iety, so  to  speak,  to  accomplish  their  salvation,  which  were  displayed 
by  "the  cross  of  Christ  "  are  here  in  continued  and  active  manifesta- 
tion. A  Divine  Agent  is  seen  " seeking"  in  order  that  he  may  save, 
"  that  which  is  lost ;"  following  the  "  lost  sheep  into  the  wilderness"  that 
he  may  "  bring  it  home  rejoicing ;"  delighting  to  testify  of  Christ,  be- 
cause of  the  salvation  he  has  procured  ;  to  accompany  with  his  influence 
written  revelation,  because  that  alone  contains  "  words  by  which  men 
may  he  saved;"  affording  special  assistance  to  ministers,  because  they 
are  the  messengers  of  God  proclaiming  peace;  and,  in  a  word,  knock- 
ing at  the  door  of  human  hearts  ;  arousing  the  conscience  ;  calling  forth 
spiritual  desires ;  opening  the  eyes  of  the  mind  more  clearly  to  discern 
the  meaning  and  application  of  the  revealed  word ;  and  mollifying  the 
heart  to  receive  its  effectual  impression  : — doing  this  too  without  respect 
of  persons,  and  making  it  his  special  office  and  work  to  convince  the 
mistaken  ;  to  awaken  the  indifferent ;  to  comfort  the  penitent  and  hum- 
ble ;  to  plant  and  foster  and  bring  to  maturity  in  the  hearts  of  the  obe. 
dient  every  grace  and  virtue.  These  are  views  of  God  which  we  could 
not  have  had  but  for  this  doctrine  ;  and  the  obvious  tendency  of  them  is, 
to  fill  the  heart  with  gratitude  for  a  condescension  so  wonderful  and  a 
solicitude  so  tender;  to  impress  us  with  a  deep  conviction  of  the  value 
of  renewed  habits,  since  God  himself  stoops  to  work  them  in  us ;  and  to 
admonish  us  of  the  infinite  importance  of  a  personal  experience  of  the 


FIRST.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  223 

benefits  of  Christ's  death,  since  the  means  of  our  pardon  and  sanctifl 
cation  unapplied  can  avail  us  nothing. 

We  may  add,  (and  it  is  no  feeble  argument  in  favour  of  the  excellence 
of  this  branch  of  Christian  doctrine,)  that  we  are  thereby  encouraged  to 
aspire  after  a  loftier  character  of  moral  purity,  and  a  more  perfect  state 
of  virtue  ;  as  well  as  to  engage  in  more  difficult  duties.  Were  we  left 
wholly  to  our  own  resources,  we  should  despair ;  and  perhaps  it  is 
exactly  in  proportion  to  the  degree  in  which  this  promise  of  the  Holy 
Spirit  is  apprehended  by  those  who  truly  receive  Christianity,  that  they 
advance  the  standard  of  possible  moral  attainment.  That  God  should 
"  work  in  us  to  will  and  io  do  of  his  good  pleasure"  is  a  reason  why  we 
should  "  work  out  our  own  salvation  with  fear  and  trembling  ;"  for  as  our 
freedom  is  not  destroyed,  as  even  the  Spirit  may  be  "grieved"  and 
" quenched"  our  fall  would  be  unspeakably  aggravated  by  our  advan- 
tages. But  the  operation  of  God  within  us  is  also  a  motive  to  the  work- 
ing  our  salvation  "  out," — to  the  perfecting  of  our  sanctification  even  to 
eternal  life.  None  can  despair  of  conquering  any  evil  habit,  who  steadily 
look  to  this  great  doctrine,  and  cordially  embrace  it ;  none  can  despair 
of  being  fully  renewed  again  in  the  image  of  God,  when  they  know  that 
it  is  one  of  the  offices  of  the  Holy  Spirit  to  effect  this  renovation  ;  and 
none  who  habitually  rest  upon  the  promise  of  God  for  all  that  assistance 
which  the  written  word  warrants  them  to  expect  in  difficult  and  painful 
duties,  and  in  those  generous  enterprises  for  the  benefit  of  others  which 
a  hallowed  zeal  may  lead  them  to  engage  in,  will  be  discouraged  in 
either.  "  In  the  name  of  God,"  such  persons  have  in  all  ages  "  lifted  up 
their  banners,"  and  have  thus  been  elevated  into  a  decision,  a  boldness, 
an  enterprise,  a  perseverance,  which  no  other  consideration  or  trust 
could  inspire.  Such  are  the  practical  effects  of  this  doctrine, 
prompts  to  attainments  in  inward  sanctity  and  outward  virtue,  which 
would  have  been  chimerical  to  consider  possible,  but  for  the  aid  of  a 
Divine  influence ;  and  it  leads  to  exertion  for  the  benefit  of  others,  the 
success  of  which  would  otherwise  be  too  doubtful  to  encourage  the 
undertaking. 

It  would  be  easy  to  adduce  many  other  doctrines  of  our  religion, 
which,  from  their  obvious  excellency  and  correspondence  with  the 
experience  and  circumstances  of  mankind,  furnish  much  interesting 
internal  evidence  in  favour  of  its  Divinity ;  but  as  this  would  greatly 
exceed  the  limits  of  a  chapter,  and  as  those  doctrines  have  been  consi- 
dered against  which  the  most  strenuous  objections  from  pretended 
rational  principles  have  been  urged ;  the  moral  state  and  condition  of 
man  ;  the  atonement  made  by  the  death  of  Christ  for  the  sins  of  the 
world  ;  and  the  influences  of  the  Holy  Spirit, — it  may  have  been  suffi- 
cient for  the  argument  to  have  shown  that  even  such  doctrines  are 
accompanied  with  important  and   interesting  reasons ;  and  that  they 


2524  THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES.  [PART 

powerfully  commend  Christianity  to  universal  acceptance.  What  has 
been  said  is  to  be  considered  only  as  a  specimen  of  the  rational  proof 
which  accompanies  many  of  the  doctrines  of  revelation,  and  which  a 
considerate  mind  may  with  ease  enlarge  by  numerous  other  instances 
drawn  from  its  precepts,  its  promises,  and  those  future  and  ennobling 
hopes  which  it  sets  before  us.  The  wonderful  agreement  in  doctrine 
among  the  writers  of  the  numerous  books  of  which  the  Bible  is  com- 
posed,  who  lived  in  ages  very  distant  from  each  other,  and  wrote  under 
circumstances  as  varied  as  can  well  be  conceived,  may  properly  close 
this  part  of  the  internal  evidence.  "  In  all  the  bearings,  parts,  and 
designs  of  the  book  of  God,  we  shall  find  a  most  striking  harmony, 
fitness,  and  adaptation  of  its  component  parts  to  one  beautiful,  stupen- 
dous, and  united  whole ;  and  that  all  its  parts  unite  and  terminate  in  a 
most  magnificent  exhibition  of  the  glory  of  God,  the  lustre  of  his  attri- 
butes, the  strict  and  true  perfection  of  his  moral  government,  the  mag- 
nitude and  extent  of  his  grace  and  love,  especially  as  manifested  in  the 
salvation  and  happiness  of  man,  in  his  recovery  from  moral  pravity, 
and  restoration  to  a  capacity  of  acquiring  happiness  eternal."  (Lloyd's 
Horce  Theological.)  This  argument  is  so  justly  and  forcibly  expressed 
in  the  following  quotation,  as  to  need  no  farther  elucidation : — 

"  The  sacred  volume  is  composed  by  a  vast  variety  of  writers,  men  of 
every  different  rank  and  condition,  of  every  diversity  of  character  and 
turn  of  mind ;  the  monarch  and  the  plebeian,  the  illiterate  and  learned, 
the  foremost  in  talent  and  the  moderately  gifted  in  natural  advantages, 
the  historian  and  the  legislator,  the  orator  and  the  poet, — each  has  his 
peculiar  province ;  '  some  prophets,  some  apostles,  some  evangelists,'1 
living  in  ages  remote  from  each  other,  under  different  modes  of  civil 
government,  under  different  dispensations  of  the  Divine  economy,  filling 
a  period  of  time  which  reached  from  the  first  dawn  of  heavenly  light  to 
its  meridian  radiance.  The  Old  Testament  and  the  New,  the  law  and 
the  Gospel ;  the  prophets  predicting  events,  and  the  evangelists  record- 
ing them  ;  the  doctrinal  yet  didactic  epistolary  writers,  and  he  who 
closed  the  sacred  canon  in  the  Apocalyptic  vision ; — all  these  furnished 
their  respective  portions,  and  yet  all  tally  with  a  dove-tailed  correspond- 
ence ;  all  the  different  materials  are  joined  with  a  completeness  the 
most  satisfactory,  with  an  agreement  the  most  incontrovertible. 

"  This  instance  of  uniformity  without  design,  of  agreement  without 
contrivance  ;  this  consistency  maintained  through  a  long  series  of  ages, 
without  a  possibility  of  the  ordinary  methods  for  conducting  such  a 
plan ;  these  unparalleled  congruities,  these  unexampled  coincidences, 
form  altogether  a  species  of  evidence,  of  which  there  is  no  other 
instance  in  the  history  of  all  the  other  books  in  the  world. 

u  All  these  variously  gifted  writers  here  enumerated,  concur  in  this 
grand  peculiarity, — that  all  have  the  same  end  in  view,  all  are  pointing 


FIRST.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  225 

to  the  same  object ;  all,  without  any  projected  collusion,  are  advancing 
the  same  scheme ;  each  brings  in  his  several  contingent  without  any 
apparent  consideration  how  it  may  unite  with  the  portions  brought  by 
other  contributors,  without  any  spirit  of  accommodation,  without  any 
visible  intention  to  make  out  a  case,  without  indeed  any  actual  resem- 
blance, more  than  that  every  separate  portion  being  derived  from  the. 
same  spring,  each  must  be  governed  by  one  common  principle,  and  that 
principle  being  truth  itself,  must  naturally  and  consentaneously  produce 
assimilation,  conformity,  agreement.  What  can  we  conclude  from,  all 
this,  but  what  is  indeed  the  inevitable  conclusion, — a  conclusion  which 
forces  itself  on  the  mind,  and  compels  the  submission  of  the  understand- 
ing ; — that  all  this,  under  differences  of  administration,  is  the  work  of 
one  and  the  same  great  omniscient  and  eternal  Spirit!"  (Mrs.  More's 
Character  of  St.  Paul.) 

The  second  branch  of  the  internal  evidence  of  the  Scriptures  con- 
sists of  their  moral  tendency ;  and  here,  as  in  doctrine,  the  believer  may 
take  the  highest  and  most  commanding  ground. 

If,  as  to  the  truths  revealed  in  them,  the  before  u unknown  God" 
unknown  even  to  the  philosophers  of  Athens,  has  been  "  declared"  unto 
us ;  if  the  true  moral  condition,  dangers,  and  hopes  of  man  have  been 
revealed  ;  if  the  "  kindness  and  good  will  of  God  our  Saviour  unto  man" 
has  appeared ;  if  the  true  propitiation  has  been  disclosed,  and  the  gates 
of  salvation  opened ;  if,  through  the  promised  influences  of  the  Holy 
Spirit,  the  renewal  of  our  natures  in  the  image  of  God  originally  borne 
by  man,  the  image  of  his  holiness,  is  made  possible  to  all  who  seek  it ; 
if  we  have,  in  the  consentaneous  system  of  doctrine  which  we  find  in 
the  Scriptures,  every  moral  direction  which  can  safely  guide,  every 
promise  which  can  convey  a  blessing  suitable  to  our  condition,  and 
every  hope  which  can  at  once  support  under  suffering,  and  animate  us 
.o  go  through  our  course  of  trial,  and  aspire  to  the  high  rewards  of 
another  life  ;  the  moral  influence  of  such  a  system  is  as  powerful  as  its 
revelations  of  doctrine  are  lofty  and  important. 

One  of  the  most  flagrant  instances  of  that  malignity  of  heart  with 
which  some  infidel  writers  have  assailed  the  Scriptures,  and  which, 
more  than  any  thing,  shows  that  it  is  not  the  want  of  evidence,  but  a 
hostility  arising  from  a  less  creditable  source,  which  leads  them,  in  the 
spirit  of  enmity  and  malice,  wilfully  to  libel  what  they  ought  to  adore, — 
is,  that  they  have  boldly  asserted  the  Bible  to  have  an  immoral  tend- 
ency. For  this,  the  chief  proof  which  they  pretend  to  offer  is,  that  it 
records  the  failings  and  the  vices  of  some  of  the  leading  characters  in 
the  Old  and  New  Testaments. 

The  fact  is  not  denied :  but  they  suppress  what  is  equally  true,  that 
these  vices  are  never  mentioned  with  approbation ;  that  the  characters 
stained  with  them  are  not,  in  those  respects,  held  up  to  our  imitation  ■ 
Vol.  I.  15 


226  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

and  that  their  frailties  are  recorded  for  admonition.  They  dwell  upon 
the  crimes  of  David,  and  sneer  at  his  being  called  "  a  man  after  God's 
ovm  heart:"  but  they  suppress  the  fact,  that  he  was  so  called  long 
before  the  commission  of  those  crimes ;  and  that  he  was  not  at  any 
time  declared  to  be  acceptable  to  God  with  reference  to  his  private 
conduct  as  a  man,  but  in  respect  of  his  public  conduct  as  a  king.  Nor 
do  they  state,  that  these  crimes  are,  in  the  same  Scriptures,  represented 
as  being  tremendously  visited  by  the  displeasure  of  the  Almighty,  both 
in  the  life  of  David,  and  in  the  future  condition  of  his  family.  From 
such  Qbjectors  the  Bible  can  suffer  nothing,  because  the  injustice  of 
their  attacks  implies  a  constrained  homage  to  the  force  of  truth.  Even 
this  very  objection  furnishes  so  strong  an  argument  in  favour  of  the 
sincerity  and  honesty  of  the  sacred  writers,  that  it  confirms  their  cre- 
dibility in  that  which  unbelievers  deny,  as  well  as  in  those  relations 
which  they  are  glad,  for  a  hostile  purpose,  to  admit.  Had  the  Scrip. 
tures  been  written  by  cunning  impostors,  such  acknowledgments  of 
crimes  and  frailties  in  their  most  distinguished  characters,  and  in  some 
of  the  writers  themselves,  would  not  have  been  made. 

"  The  evangelists  all  agree  in  this  most  unequivocal  character  of 
veracity,  that  of  criminating  themselves.  They  record  their  own  errors 
and  offences  with  the  same  simplicity  with  which  they  relate  the 
miracles  and  sufferings  of  their  Lord.  Indeed  their  dulness,  mistakes, 
and  failings,  are  so  intimately  blended  with  his  history  by  their  continual 
demands  upon  his  patience  and  forbearance,  as  to  make  no  inconsider- 
able or  unimportant  part  of  it.  This  fidelity  is  equally  admirable  both 
in  the  composition  and  in  the  preservation  of  the  Old  Testament,  a  book 
which  every  where  testifies  against  those  whose  history  it  contains,  and 
not  seldom  against  the  relators  themselves.  The  author  of  the  Penta- 
teuch proclaims,  in  the  most  pointed  terms,  the  ingratitude  of  those 
chosen  people  toward  God.  He  prophesies  that  they  will  go  on  filling 
up  the  measure  of  their  offences,  calls  heaven  and  earth  to  witness 
against  them  that  he  has  delivered  his  own  soul,  and  declares  that  as 
they  have  worshipped  gods  which  were  no  gods,  God  will  punish  them 
by  calling  a  people  who  were  no  people.  Yet  this  book,  so  disgraceful 
to  their  national  character,  this  register  of  their  own  offences,  they 
would  rather  die  than  lose.  '  This,'  says  the  admirable  Pascal,  '  is  an 
instance  of  integrity  which  has  no  example  in  the  world,  no  root  in 
nature.'  In  the  Pentateuch  and  the  Gospels,  therefore,  these  parallel, 
these  unequalled  instances  of  sincerity,  are  incontrovertible  proofs  of 
the  trutli  of  both."   (Mrs.  Mork's  Character  of  St.  Paul.) 

It  is  but  just  to  say,  that  the  malignant  absurdity  and  wickedness  of 
charging  the  Scriptures  with  an  immoral  tendency,  have  not  beon  in- 
curred bv  all  who  have  even  zealously  endeavoured  to  undermine  their 
Divine  authority.     Many  of  them  make  important  concessions  on  this 


FIRST.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  227 

point.  They  show  in  their  own  characters  the  effect  of  their  unbelief, 
and  probably  the  chief  cause  of  it :  Blount  committed  suicide,  because 
he  was  prevented  from  an  incestuous  marriage  ;  Tyndal  was  notoriously 
infamous ;  Hobbes  changed  his  principles  with  his  interests ;  Morgan 
continued  to  profess  Christianity  while  he  wrote  against  it.  The  moral 
character  of  Voltaire  was  mean  and  detestable  ;  Bolinbroke  was  a  rake 
and  a  flagitious  politician.  Collins  and  Shaftesbury  qualified  themselves 
for  civil  offices  by  receiving  the  sacrament,  while  they  were  endeavour- 
ing to  prove  the  religion  of  which  h  is  a  solemn  expression  of»  belief,  a 
mere  imposture  ;  Hume  was  revengeful,  disgustingly  vain,  and  an  advo- 
cate of  adultery  and  self  murder ;  Paine  was  the  slave  of  low  and 
degrading  habits ;  and  Rousseau  an  abandoned  sensualist,  and  guilty  of 
the  basest  actions,  which  he  scruples  not  to  state  and  palliate.  Yet  even 
some  of  these  have  admitted  the  superior  purity  of  the  morals  of  the 
Christian  revelation.  The  eloquent  eulogium  of  Rousseau  on  the  Gospel 
and  its  Author,  is  well  known ;  it  is  a  singular  passage,  and  shows,  that 
it  is  the  state  of  the  heart,  and  not  the  judgment,  which  leads  to  the 
rejection  of  the  testimony  of  God.  (3) 

(3)  "  I  will  confess  to  you  that  the  majesty  of  the  Scriptures  strikes  me  with 
admiration,  as  the  purity  of  the  Gospel  has  its  influence  on  my  heart.  Peruse 
the  works  of  our  philosophers,  with  all  their  pomp  of  diction  :  how  mean,  how 
contemptible  are  they,  compared  with  the  Scriptures  !  Is  it  possible  that  a  book 
at  once  so  simple  and  sublime,  should  be  merely  the  work  of  man  ?  Is  it  pos- 
sible that  the  sacred  personage,  whose  history  it  contains,  should  be  himself  a 
mere  man  ?  Do  we  find  that  he  assumed  the  tone  of  an  enthusiast  or  ambitious 
sectary  ?  What  sweetness,  what  purity  in  his  manners !  What  an  affecting 
gracefulness  in  his  delivery  !  What  sublimity  in  his  maxims  !  What  profound 
wisdom  in  his  discourses  !  What  presence  of  mind  in  his  replies  !  How  great 
the  command  over  his  passions  !  Where  is  the  man,  where  the  philosopher, 
who  could  so  live,  and  so  die,  without  weakness,  and  without  ostentation  ? 
When  Plato  described  his  imaginary  good  man  with  all  the  shame  of  guilt,  yet 
meriting  the  highest  rewards  of  virtue,  he  described  exactly  the  character  of 
Jesus  Christ :  the  resemblance  was  so  striking  that  all  the  Christian  fathers 
perceived  it. 

"  What  prepossession,  what  blindness  must  it  be,  to  compare  the  son  of 
Sophronicus  [Socrates]  to  the  Son  of  Mary  !  What  an  infinite  disproportion 
is  there  between  them  !  Socrates  dying  without  pain  or  ignominy,  easily  sup- 
ported his  character  to  the  last :  and  if  his  death,  however  easy,  had  not  crowned 
his  life,  it  might  have  been  doubted  whether  Socrates,  with  all  his  wisdom,  was 
any  thing  more  than  a  vain  sophist.  He  invented,  it  is  said,  the  theory  of  morals. 
Others,  however,  had  before  put  them  in  practice  ;  he  had  only  to  say,  therefore, 
what  they  had  done,  and  to  reduce  their  examples  to  precept.  But  where  could 
Jesus  learn  among  his  competitors,  that  pure  and  sublime  morality,  of  which  he 
only  has  given  us  both  precept  and  example  ?  The  death  of  Socrates,  peaceably 
philosophizing  with  his  friends,  appears  the  most  agreeable  that  could  be  wished 
for ;  that  of  Jesus,  expiring  in  the  midst  of  agonizing  pains,  abused,  insulted, 
and  accused  by  a  whole  nation,  is  the  most  horrible  that  could  be  feared 
Socrates,  in  receiving  the  cup  of  poison,  blessed  the  weeping  executioner  who 


228  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.        /  [PART 

Nor  is  it  surprising  that  a  truth  so  obvious  should,  even  from  adver- 
saries, extort  concession.  No  where  but  in  the  Scriptures  have  we  a 
perfect  system  of  morals  ;  and  the  deficiencies  of  pagan  morality  only 
exalt  the  purity,  the  comprehensiveness,  the  practicability  of  ours. 
The  character  of  the  Being  acknowledged  as  Supreme  must  always  im- 
press itself  upon  moral  feeling  and  practice ;  the  obligation  of  which 
rests  upon  his  will.  We  have  seen  the  views  entertained  by  pagans  on 
this  all-important  point,  and  their  effects.  The  God  of  the  Bible  is 
"holy"  without  spot ;  "just"  without  intermission  or  partiality  ;  "good," 
^-boundlessly  benevolent  and  beneficent :  and  his  law  is  the  image  of 
himself,  "  holy,  just,  and  good."  These  great  moral  qualities  are  not  as 
with  them,  so  far  as  they  were  apprehended,  merely  abstract,  and  there- 
fore comparatively  feeble  in  their  influence.  In  the  person  of  Christ, 
our  God  incarnate,  they  are  seen  exemplified  in  action,  displaying  them- 
selves amidst  human  relations,  and  the  actual  circumstances  of  human 
life.  With  them,  the  authority  of  moral  rules  was  either  the  opinion  of 
the  wise,  or  the  tradition  of  the  ancient,  confirmed  it  is  true,  in  some 
degree,  by  observation  and  experience ;  but  to  us,  they  are  given  as 
commands  immediately  from  the  supreme  Governor,  and  ratified  as  his 
by  the  most  solemn  and  explicit  attestations.  With  them,  many  great 
moral  principles,  being  indistinctly  apprehended,  were  matters  of  doubt 
and  debate  ;  to  us,  the  explicit  manner  in  which  they  are  given  excludes 
both  :  for  it  cannot  be  questioned,  whether  we  are  commanded  to  love 
our  neighbour  as  ourselves ;  to  do  to  others  as  we  would  they  should  do 
to  us,  a  precept  which  comprehends  almost  all  relative  morality  in  one 
plain  principle ;  to  forgive  our  enemies ;  to  love  all  mankind  ;  to  live 
"  righteously"  and  "  soberly,"  as  well  as  "  godly ;"  that  magistrates 
must  be  a  terror  only  to  evil  doers,  and  a  praise  to  them  that  do  well  ; 
that  subjects  are  to  render  honour  to  whom  honour,  and  tribute  to  whom 
tribute  is  due ;  that  masters  are  to  be  just  and  merciful,  and  servants 
faithful  and  obedient.  These  and  many  other  familiar  precepts  are  too 
explicit  to  be  mistaken,  and  too  authoritative  to  be  disputed ;  two  of  the 
most  powerful  means  of  rendering  law  effectual.  Those  who  never  en- 
administered  it;  but  Jesus,  in  the  midst  of  excruciating  tortures,  prayed  for  his 
merciless  tormentors.  Yes  !  if  the  life  and  death  of  Socrates  were  those  of  a 
sage,  the  life  and  death  of  Jesus  were  those  of  a  God.  Shall  we  suppose  the 
evangelic  history  a  mere  fiction  ?  Indeed,  my  friend,  it  bears  not  the  marks  of 
fiction  ;  on  the  contrary,  the  history  of  Socrates,  which  nobody  prosumes  to  doubt, 
is  not  so  well  attested  as  that  of  Jesus  Christ.  Such  a  supposition,  in  fact,  only 
shifts  the  difficulty,  without  obviating  it ;  it  is  more  inconceivable,  that  a  num- 
ber of  persons  should  agree  to'  write  such  a  history,  than  that  one  only  should 
furnish  the  subject  of  it.  The  Jewish  authors  were  incapable  of  the  diction,  and 
strangers  to  the  morality  contained  in  the  Gospel,  the  marks  of  whose  truth  are 
so  striking  and  inimitable,  that  the  inventor  would  be  a  more  astonishing  man 
than  the  hero." 


FIRST.J  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  229 

joyed  the  benefit  of  revelation,  never  conceived  justly  and  comprehen- 
sively of  that  moral  state  of  the  heart  from  which  right  and  beneficent 
conduct  alone  can  flow,  and  therefore  when  they  speak  of  the  same 
virtues  as  those  enjoined  by  Christianity,  they  are  to  be  understood  as 
attaching  to  them  a  lower  idea.  In  this  the  infinite  superiority  of 
Christianity  displays  itself.  The  principle  of  obedience  is  not  only  a 
sense  of  duty  to  God,  and  the  fear  of  his  displeasure  ;  but  a  tender  love, 
excited  by  his  infinite  compassions  to  us  in  the  gift  of  his  Son,  which 
shrinks  from  offending.  To  this  influential  motive  as  a  reason  of 
obedience,  is  added  another,  drawn  from  its  end :  one  not  less  influential ; 
but  which  heathen  moralists  never  knew, — the  testimony  that  we  please 
God,  manifested  in  the  acceptance  of  our  prayers,  and  in  spiritual  and 
felicitous  communion  with  him.  By  Christianity,  impurity  of  thought 
and  desire  is  restrained  in  an  equal  degree  as  their  overt  acts  in  the  lips 
and  conduct.  Humanity,  meekness,  gentleness,  placability,  disinterest- 
edness, and  charity,  are  all  as  clearly  and  solemnly  enjoined  as  the 
grosser  vices  are  prohibited ;  and  on  the  unruly  tongue  itself  is  im- 
pressed "  the  law  of  kindness."  Nor  are  the  injunctions  feeble  ;  they 
are  strictly  law,  and  not  mere  advice  and  recommendations.  "  Without 
holiness  no  man  shall  see  the  Lord  ;"  and  thus  our  entrance  into  heaven, 
and  our  escape  from  perdition,  are  made  to  depend  upon  this  preparation 
of  mind.  To  all  this  is  added  possibility,  nay  certainty  of  attainment,  if 
we  use  the  appointed  means.  A  pagan  could  draw,  though  not  with  lines 
so  perfect,  a  beau  ideal  of  virtue,  which  he  never  thought  attainable ; 
but  the  "full  assurance  of  hope"  is  given  by  the  religion  of  Christ  to 
all  who  are  seeking  the  moral  renovation  of  their  nature ;  because  "  it 
is  God  that  worketh  in  us  to  will  and  to  do  of  his  good  pleasure." 

When  such  is  the  moral  tendency  of  Christianity,  how  obvious  is  its 
beneficial  tendency  both  as  to  the  individual  and  to  society !  From 
every  passion  which  wastes,  and  burns,  and  frets,  and  enfeebles  the 
spirit,  the  individual  is  set  free,  and  his  inward  peace  renders  his 
obedience  cheerful  and  voluntary  ;  and  we  might  appeal  to  infidels  them- 
selves, whether,  if  the  moral  principles  of  the  Gospel  were  wrought  into 
the  hearts,  and  embodied  in  the  conduct  of  all  men,  the  world  would  not 
be  happy  ; — whether,  if  governments  ruled,  and  subjects  obeyed  by  the 
laws  of  Christ ; — whether,  if  the  rules  of  strict  justice  which  are  enjoined 
upon  us  regulated  all  the  transactions  of  men,  and  all  that  mercy  to  the 
distressed  which  we  are  taught  to  feel  and  to  practise  came  into  opera- 
tion ; — and  whether,  if  the  precepts  whieh  delineate  and  enforce  the 
duties  of  husbands,  wives,  masters,  servants,  parents,  children,  fully  and 
generally  governed  all  these  relations,  a  better  age  than  that  called 
golden  by  the  poets,  would  not  be  realized,  and  Virgil's 
Jam  redit  et  Virgo,  redeunt  Saturnia  regna, 
be  far  too  weak  to  express  the  mighty  change  ?     Such  is  the  tendency 


230  THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES.  JPART 

of  Christianity.  On  immense  numbers  of  individuals  it  has  superin- 
duced these  moral  changes ;  all  nations,  where  it  has  been  fully  and 
faithfully  exhibited,  bear,  amidst  their  remaining  vices,  the  impress  of 
its  hallowing  and  benevolent  influence  :  it  is  now  in  active  exertion,  in 
many  of  the  darkest  and  worst  parts  of  the  earth,  to  convey  the  same 
blessings ;  and  he  who  would  arrest  its  progress,  were  he  able,  would 
quench  the  only  hope  which  remains  to  our  world,  and  prove  himself  an 
enemy,  not  only  to  himself,  but  to  all  mankind.  What  then,  we  ask, 
does  all  this  prove,  but  that  the  Scriptures  are  worthy  of  God,  and  pro- 
pose the  very  ends  which  rendered  a  revelation  necessary  ?  Of  the 
whole  system  of  practical  religion  which  it  contains  we  may  say,  as  of 
that  which  is  embodied  in  our  Lord's  Sermon  on  the  Mount,  in  the  words 
of  one  who,  in  a  course  of  sermons  on  that  Divine  composition,  has 
entered  most  deeply  into  its  spirit,  and  presented  a  most  instructive 
delineation  of  the  character  which  it  was  intended  to  form  :  "  Behold 
Christianity  in  its  native  form,  as  delivered  by  its  great  Author.  See  a 
picture  of  God,  as  far  as  he  is  imitable  by  man,  drawn  by  God's  own 
hand. — What  beauty  appears  in  the  whole  !  How  just  a  symmetry ! 
What  exact  proportion  in  every  part !  How  desirable  is  the  happiness 
here  described !  How  venerable,  how  lovely  is  the  holiness  !"  (Wes- 
ley's Sermons.)  "  If,"  says  Bishop  Taylor,  "  wisdom,  and  mercy,  and 
justice,  and  simplicity,  and  holiness,  and  purity,  and  meekness,  and  con- 
tentedness,  and  charity,  be  images  of  God,  and  rays  of  Divinity,  then 
that  doctrine,  in  which  all  these  shine  so  gloriously,  and  in  which 
nothing  else  is  ingredient,  must  needs  be  from  God.  If  the  holy  Jesus 
had  come  into  the  world  with  less  splendour  of  power  and  mighty 
demonstrations,  yet  the  excellency  of  what  he  taught  makes  him  alone 
fit  to  be  the  Master  of  the  world."  (Moral  Demonstration  of  the 
Truth  of  the  Christian  Religion.) 

Internal  evidence  of  the  truth  of  the  Scriptures  may  also  be  col- 
lected from  their  style.  It  is  various,  and  thus  accords  with  the  profes- 
sion, that  the  whole  is  a  collection  of  books  by  different  individuals ; 
each  has  his  own  peculiarity  so  strongly  marked,  and  so  equally  sus- 
tained throughout  the  book  or  books  ascribed  to  him,  as  to  be  a  forcible 
proof  of  genuineness.  The  style  of  Moses,  Isaiah,  Jeremiah,  Ezekiel, 
Daniel,  the  evangelists,  and  St.  Paul,  are  all  strikingly  different.  The 
writers  of  the  New  Testament  employ  Hebrew  idioms,  words,  and 
phrases.  The  Greek  in  which  they  wrote,  is  not  classical  Greek  ;  but, 
as  it  is  observed  by  Bishop  Marsh,  "  is  such  a  dialect  as  would  be  used 
by  persons  educated  in  a  country  where  Chaldee  or  Syriac  was  spoken 
as  the  vernacular  tongue  ;  but  who  also  acquired  a  knowledge  of  Greek 
by  frequent  intercourse  with  strangers."  This  therefore  affords  an 
argument  from  internal  evidence,  that  the  books  were  written  by  the 
persons  whose  names  they  bear ;  and  it  has  been  shown  by  the  same 


FIRST.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  231 

prelate,  that  as  this  particular  style  was  changed  after  the  destruction 
of  Jerusalem,  the  same  compound  language  could  not  be  written  in  any 
other  age  than  the  first  century,  and  proof  is  obtained  from  this  source 
also  in  favour  of  the  antiquity  of  the  Scriptures  of  the  New  Testament. 
Arc*  argument  to  the  same  point  of  antiquity  is  drawn  by  Michaelis 
from  the  accordancy  of  the  evangelic  history  and  the  apostolical  epistles 
with  the  history  and  manners  of  the  age  to  which  they  refer.  "  A 
Greek  or  Roman  Christian,"  he  observes,  "  who  lived  in  the  second  or 
third  century,  though  as  well  versed  in  the  writings  of  the  ancients  as 
Eustathius  or  Asconius,  would  still  have  been  wanting  in  Jewish  litera- 
ture ;  and  a  Jewish  convert  in  those  ages,  even  the  most  learned  rabbi, 
would  have  been  equally  deficient  in  the  knowledge  of  Greece  and 
Rome.  If  then  the  New  Testament,  thus  exposed  to  detection,  (had  it 
been  an  imposture,)  is  found,  after  the  severest  researches,  to  harmonize 
with  the  history,  the  manners,  and  the  opinions  of  the  first  century,  antf 
since  the  more  minutely  we  inquire,  the  more  perfect  we  find  the 
coincidence,  we  must  conclude  that  it  was  beyond  the  reach  of  human 
abilities  to  effectuate  so  wonderful  a  deception." 

The  manner  of  the  sacred  writers  is  also  in  proof,  that  they  were 
conscious  of  the  truth  of  what  they  relate.  The  whole  narrative  is 
simple  and  natural.  Even  in  the  accounts  given  of  the  creation,  the 
flood,  the  exodus  from  Egypt,  and  the  events  of  the  life  and  death  of 
Christ,  where  designing  men  would  have  felt  most  inclined  to  endeavour 
to  heighten  the  impression  by  glowing  and  elaborate  description,  the 
same  chastened  simplicity  is  preserved.  "  These  sober  recorders  of 
events  the  most  astonishing,  are  never  carried  away,  by  the  circum- 
stances they  relate,  into  any  pomp  of  diction,  into  any  use  of  superla 
tives.  There  is  not,  perhaps,  in  the  whole  Gospel  a  single  interjection, 
not  an  exclamation,  nor  any  artifice  to  call  the  reader's  attention  to  the 
marvels  of  which  the  relators  were  the  witnesses.  Absorbed  in  their 
holy  task,  no  alien  idea  presents  itself  to  their  mind :  the  object  before 
them  fills  it.  They  never  digress  ;  are  never  called  away  by  the  solicita 
tions  of  vanity,  or  the  suggestions  of  curiosity.  No  image  starts  up  to 
divert  their  attention.  There  is,  indeed,  in  the  Gospels  much  imagery, 
much  allusion,  much  allegory,  but  they  proceed  from  their  Lord,  and 
are  recorded  as  his.  The  writers  never  fill  up  the  intervals  between 
events.  They  leave  circumstances  to  make  their  own  impression,  in- 
stead of  helping  out  the  reader  by  any  reflections  of  their  own.  They 
always  feel  the  holy  '  ground  on  which  they  stand.  They  preserve 
the  gravity  of  history  and  the  severity  of  truth,  without  enlarging  the 
outline  or  swelling  the  expression.' "  (Mrs.  More's  Character  of  St 
Paul.) 

Another  source  of  internal  evidence,  arising  from  incidental  coin, 
cidences,  which,  from  "  their  latency  and  minuteness,"  must  be  supposed 


232  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

to  have  their  foundation  in  truth,  is  opened,  and  ably  illustrated  by  Dr. 
Paley,  in  his  "  Horae  Paulina?,"  a  work  which  will  well  repay  the 
perusal. 

Much  of  the  collateral  evidence  of  the  truth  of  the  Scriptures 
generally,  and  of  Christianity  in  particular,  has  been  anticipated  in  \he 
course  of  this  discussion,  and  need  not  again  be  resumed.  The  agree- 
ment of  the  final  revelation  of  the  will  of  God,  by  the  ministry  of  Christ 
and  his  apostles,  with  former  authenticated  revelations,  has  been  pointed 
out ;  so  that  the  whole  constitutes  one  body  of  harmonious  doctrines, 
gradually  introduced,  and  at  length  fully  unfolded  and  confirmed.  The 
suitableness  of  the  Christian  revelation  to  the  state  of  the  world,  at  the 
time  of  its  communication,  follows  from  the  view  we  have  given  of  the 
necessity,  not  only  of  a  revelation  generally,  but  of  such  a  revelation  as 
the  mercy  of  God  has  vouchsafed  to  the  world  through  his  Son.  It  has 
also  been  shown,  that  its  historical  facts  accord  with  the  credible  histo- 
ries and  traditions  of  the  same  time ;  that  monuments  remain  to  attest 
its  truth,  in  the  institutions  of  the  Christian  Church  ;  and  that  adversa- 
ries have  made  concessions  in  its  favour.  (4)  Our  farther  remarks  on 
this  subject,  though  many  other  interesting  particulars  might  be  embraced, 
must  be  confined  to  two  particulars,  but  each  of  a  very  convincing  cha- 
racter. The  first  is,  the  marvellous  diffusion  of  Christianity  in  the  three 
first  centuries  ;  the  second  is,  the  actual  beneficial  effect  produced,  and 
which  is  still  producing,  by  Christianity  upon  mankind. 

With  respect  to  the  first,  the  fact  to  be  accounted  for  is,  that  the  first 
preachers  of  the  Gospel,  though  unsupported  by  human  power,  and 
uncommended  by  philosophic  wisdom,  and  even  in  opposition  to  both, 
succeeded  in  effecting  a  revolution  in  the  opinions  and  manners  of  a  great 
portion  of  the  civilized  world,  to  which  there  is  no  parallel  in  the  history 
of  mankind.  (5)  "  Though  aspersed  by  the  slander  of  the  malicious, 
and  exposed  to  the  sword  of  the  powerful,  in  a  short  period  of  time  they 
induced  multitudes  of  various  nations,  who  were  equally  distinguished 

(4)  The  collateral  testimony  to  certain  facts  mentioned  in  Scripture,  from 
coins,  medals,  and  ancient  marbles,  may  be  seen  well  applied  in  Horne's  Intro, 
duction  to  the  Study  of  the  Scriptures,  vol.  i,  p.  238. 

(5)  The  success  of  Mohammed,  though  sometimes  pushed  forward  as  a  paral- 
lel, is,  in  fact,  both  as  to  the  means  employed  and  the  effect  produced,  a  perfect 
contrast.  The  means  were  conquest  and  compulsion ;  the  effect  was  to  legalize 
and  sanctify,  so  to  speak,  the  natural  passions  of  men  for  plunder  and  sensual 
gratification  ;  and  it  surely  argues  either  a  very  frail  judgment,  or  a  criminal  dis 
position,  to  object,  that  a  contrast  so  marked  should  ever  have  been  exhibited  as 
a  eorrespondence.  Men  were  persuaded,  when  they  were  not  forced,  to  join  the 
ranks  of  the  Arabian  impostor  by  the  hope  of  plunder,  and  a  present  and  future 
Iif«  of  brutal  gratification.  Men  were  persuaded  to  join  the  apostles  by  the  evi 
.iiin<M  of  truth,  and  by  the  hope  of  future  spiritual  blessings,  but  with  the  certainty 
of  present  disgrace  and  suffering. 


FIRST.]  THEOLOGICAL     INSTITUTES.  233 

by  the  peculiarity  of  their  manners,  and  the  diversity  of  their  language, 
to  forsake  the  religion  of  their  ancestors.  The  converts  whom  they 
made  deserted  ceremonies  and  institutions,  which  were  defended  by  vigo- 
rous authority,  sanctified  by  remote  age,  and  associated  with  the  most 
alluring  gratification  of  the  passions."  (Rett's  Sermons  at  the  Bampton 
Lecture.) 

After  their  death  the  same  doctrines  were  taught,  and  the  same  effects 
followed,  though  successive  and  grievous  persecutions  were  waged 
against  all  who  professed  their  faith  in  Christ,  by  successive  emperors 
and  inferior  magistrates.  Tacitus,  about  A.  D.  62,  speaking  of  Chris- 
tianity  says,  "  This  pernicious  superstition,  though  checked  for  a  while, 
broke  out  again,  and  spread  not  only  over  Judea,  but  reached  the  city 
of  Rome  also.  At  first  they  only  were  apprehended  who  confessed 
themselves  to  be  of  that  sect ;  afterward  a  vast  multitude  were  discover- 
ed, and  cruelly  punished."  Pliny,  the  governor  of  Pontus  and  Bithy- 
nia,  near  eighty  years  after  the  death  of  Christ,  in  his  well-known  letter 
to  Trajan,  observes,  "The  contagion  of  this  superstition  has  not  only 
invaded  cities,  but  the  smaller  towns  also,  and  the  whole  country."  He 
speaks  too  of  the  idol  temples  having  been  "  almost  forsaken."  To  the 
same  effect  the  Christian  fathers  speak.  About  A.  D.  140,  Justin  Mar- 
tyr writes,  "  There  is  not  a  nation,  Greek  or  Barbarian,  or  of  any  other 
name,  even  of  those  who  wander  in  tribes,  and  live  in  tents,  among 
whom  prayers  and  thanksgivings  are  not  offered  to  the  Father  and  Crea- 
tor of  the  universe  in  the  name  of  the  crucified  Jesus."  In  A.  D.  190, 
Tertullian,  in  his  Apology,  appeals  to  the  Roman  governors — "We  were 
but  of  yesterday,  and  we  have  filled  your  cities  and  towns ;  the  camp, 
the  senate,  and  the  forum."  In  A.  D.  220,  Origen  says,  "  By  the  good 
providence  of  God,  the  Christian  religion  has  so  flourished  and  increased, 
that  it  is  now  preached  freely,  and  without  molestation."  These  repre- 
sentations, Gibbon  contends,  are  exaggerations  on  both  sides,  produced 
by  the  fears  of  Pliny,  and  the  zeal  of  the  Christian  fathers.  But  even 
granting  some  degree  of  exaggeration  arising  not  designedly  from  warm 
feelings,  an  unquestionable  occurrence  proves  the  futility  of  the  excep- 
tions taken  to  these  statements  by  the  elegant  but  infidel  historian.  The 
great  fact  is,  that  in  the  year  A.  D.  300,  Christianity  became  the  esta- 
blished religion  of  the  Roman  empire,  and  paganism  was  abolished :  and 
it  follows  from  this  event,  that  the  religion  which  thus  became  triumph- 
ant after  unparalleled  trials  and  sufferings  must  have  established  itself, 
previously  to  its  receiving  the  sanction  of  the  state,  in  the  belief  of  a 
great  majority  of  the  one  hundred  and  twenty  millions  of  people  supposed 
to  be  contained  in  the  empire,  or  no  emperor  would  have  been  insane 
enough  to  make  the  attempt  to  change  the  religion  of  so  vast  a  state, 
nor,  had  he  made  it,  could  he  have  succeeded. 

The  success  of  Christianity  in  the  three  centuries  preceding  Constan- 


234  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  IPART 

tine,  has  justly  been  considered  as  in  no  unimportant  sense  miraculous, 
and  as  such,  an  illustrious  proof  of  its  Divinity.  "  The  obstacles  which 
opposed  the  first  reception  of  Christianity  were  so  numerous  and  formida- 
ble, and  the  human  instruments  employed  for  its  diffusion  so  apparently 
weak  and  insufficient,  that  a  comparison  between  them  will  not  only 
show  that  the  passions  and  opposition  of  man,  far  from  impeding  the 
Divine  designs,  may  ultimately  become  the  means  of  their  perfect  accom- 
plishment, but  will  fully  demonstrate  the  Divine  origin  of  Christianity 
by  displaying  the  powerful  assistance  which  the  Almighty  supplied  for 
its  establishment."  (Rett's  Sermons.)  The  astonishing  success  of 
Christianity  under  such  circumstances,  and  at  so  early  a  period,  affords 
a  strong  confirmation  to  the  truth  of  miracles,  because  it  implies  them, 
as  no  other  means  can  be  conceived  by  which  an  attention  so  general 
should  have  been  excited  to  a  religion  which  was  not  only  without  the 
sanction  of  authority  and  rank,  but  opposed  by  both  ;  the  scene  of  whose 
facts  lay  in  a  province  the  people  of  which  were  despised  ;  and  whose 
doctrines  held  out  nothing  but  spiritual  attainments.  By  the  effect  of 
miracles  during  the  lives  of  the  first  preachers,  public  curiosity  was  ex- 
cited, and  they  obtained  an  audience  which  they  could  not  otherwise 
have  commanded.  This  power  of  working  miracles  was  transmitted  to 
their  successors,  and  continued  until  the  purposes  of  Infinite  Wisdom 
were  accomplished.  They  decreased  in  number  in  the  second  century, 
and  left  but  a  few  traces  at  the  close  of  the  third.  (6)  The  increase 
of  Christians  implied  even  more  than  miracles  ;  such  was  the  holy  cha- 
racter of  the  majority,  during  the  continuance  of  the  reproach  and  per- 
secutions which  followed  the  Christian  name ;  such  the  patience  with 
which  they  suffered,  and  the  fortitude  with  which  they  died ;  that  the 
influence  of  God  upon  their  hearts  is  as  manifest  in  the  new  and  hallow- 
ed character  which  distinguished  them,  and  the  meek,  forgiving,  and 
passive  virtues  which  they  exhibited,  to  the  astonishment  of  the  heathen, 
as  his  power  in  the  miracles  by  which  their  attention  was  first  drawn 
to  examine  that  truth  which  they  afterward  believed  and  held  fast 
to  death. 

The  actual  effect  produced  by  this  new  religion  upon  society,  and 
which  it  is  still  producing,  is  another  point  in  the  collateral  evidence : 
for  Christianity  has  not  only  an  adaptation  for  improving  the  condition 

(6)  Attempts  have  been  made  to  deny  the  existence  of  miraculous  powers  in 
the  ages  immediately  succeeding  that  of  the  apostles,  but  it  stands  on  the 
unanimous  and  successive  testimony  of  the  fathers.  Gibbon,  on  this  subject,  has 
borrowed  his  objections  from  "  The  Free  Inquiry"  of  Dr.  Middleton,  whose  belief 
in  Christianity  is  very  suspicious.  Thi3  book  received  many  able  answers ;  but 
none  more  so  than  one  by  the  Rev.  John  Wesley.  It  is  a  triumph  to  truth  to 
state,  that  Dr.  Middleton  felt  himself  obliged  to  give  up  his  ground  by  shifting 
the  question. 


FIRST.J  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  235 

of  society  ;  its  excellence  is  not  only  to  be  argued  from  its  effects  stated 
on  hypothetical  circumstances  ;  but  it  has  actually  won  its  moral  victo- 
ries, and  in  all  ages  has  exhibited  its  trophies.  In  every  pagan  country 
where  it  has  prevailed,  it  has  abolished  idolatry  with  its  sanguinary  and 
polluted  rites.  It  also  effected  this  mighty  revolution,  that  the  sanctions 
of  religion  should  no  longer  be  in  favour  of  the  worst  passions  and  prac- 
tices, but  be  directed  against  them.  It  has  raised  the  standard  of  mo. 
rality,  and  by  that  means,  even  where  its  full  effects  have  not  been 
suffered  to  display  themselves,  has  insensibly  improved  the  manners  of 
every  Christian  state :  what  heathen  nations  are,  in  point  of  morals,  is 
now  well  known  ;  and  the  information  on  this  subject  which  for  several 
years  past  has  been  increasing,  has  put  it  out  of  the  power  of  infidels  to 
urge  the  superior  manners  of  either  China  or  Hindostan.  It  has  abolished 
infanticide  and  human  sacrifices,  so  prevalent  among  ancient  and  modern 
heathens ;  put  an  end  to  'polygamy  and  divorce ;  and,  by  the  institution 
of  marriage  in  an  indissoluble  bond,  has  given  birth  to  a  felicity  and 
sanctity  in  the  domestic  circle  which  it  never  before  knew.  It  has  ex- 
alted the  condition  and  character  of  woman,  and  by  that  means  has 
humanized  man  ;  given  refinement  and  delicacy  to  society  ;  and  created 
a  new  and  important  affection  in  the  human  breast-^the  love  of  woman 
founded  on  esteem ;  an  affection  generally  unknown  to  heathens  the 
most  refined.  (7)  It  abolished  domestic  slavery  in  ancient  Europe  ;  and 
from  its  principles  the  struggle  which  is  now  maintained  with  African 
slavery  draws  its  energy,  and  promises  a  triumph  as  complete.  It  has 
given  a  milder  character  to  war,  and  taught  modern  nations  to  treat 
their  prisoners  with  humanity,  and  to  restore  them  by  exchange  to  their 
respective  countries.  It  has  laid  the  basis  of a  jurisprudence  more  just 
and  equal ;  given  civil  rights  to  subjects,  and  placed  restraints  on  abso- 
lute power ;  and  crowned  its  achievements  by  its  charity.  Hospitals, 
schools,  and  many  other  institutions  for  the  aid  of  the  aged  and  the  poor, 
^are  almost  exclusively  its  own  creations,  and  they  abound  most  where 
its  influence  is  most  powerful.  The  same  effects  to  this  day  are  result- 
ing from  its  influence  in  those  heathen  countries  into  which  the  Gospel 
has  been  carried  by  missionaries  sent  out  from  this  and  other  Christian 
states.  In  some  of  them  idolatry  has  been  renounced ;  infants,  and 
widows,  and  aged  persons  who  would  have  been  immolated  to  their  gods 
or  abandoned  by  their  cruelty,  have  been  preserved,  and  are  now  "  the 
living  to  praise  its  Divine  Author,  as  they  do  at  this  day."  In  other 
instances  the  light  is  prevailing  against  the  darkness  ;  and  those  systems 
of  dark  and  sanguinary  superstition  which  have  stood  for  ages  only  to 
pollute  and  oppress,  without  any  symptom  of  decay,  now  betray  the 

(7)  Among  the  Greeks,  the   education   of  women  was   chiefly  confined  to 
courtezans. 


236  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  PART 

shocks  they  have  sustained  by  the  preaching  of  the  Gospel  of  Christ, 
and  nod  to  their  final  fall.  (8) 


CHAPTER  XX. 

Miscellaneous  Objections  Answered. 

The  system  of  revealed  religion  contained  in  the  Old  and  New  Tes- 
taments, being  opposed  to  the  natural  corrupt  inclinations,  and  often  to 
the  actual  practice  of  men ;  laying  them  under  rules  to  which  they  are 
averse  ;  threatening  them  with  a  result  which  they  dread  ;  holding  out 
to  them  no  pleasures  but  such  as  they  distaste,  and  no  advantages  but 
those  which  they  would  gladly  exchange  for  a  perpetual  life  of  sinful 
indulgence  on  earth ;  will  be  regarded  by  many  of  the  most  reflecting 
among  them  as  a  system  of  restraint ;  and  must  therefore  often  excite 
either  direct  hostility,  or  a  disposition  to  encourage  and  admit  sugges- 
tions tending  to  weaken  its  authority.  It  may  be  added  that,  as  the 
Scriptures  cannot  be  known  without  careful  examination,  which  implies 
a  serious  habit  not  to  be  found  in  the  majority,  objections  have  been 
often  raised  by  ingenious  men  in  great  ignorance  of  the  volume  itself 
against  which  they  are  directed ;  and  being  sometimes  urged  on  the 
ground  of  some  popular  view  of  a  fact  or  doctrine,  they  have  been  re- 
ceived as  carelessly  as  they  were  uttered.  Philosophers  too  have  some- 
times constructed  hasty  theories  on  various  subjects,  which  have  either 
contradicted  or  been  thought  to  contradict  some  parts  of  the  Scriptures  ; 
and  the  array  of  science,  and  the  fascination  of  novelty,  have  equally 
deceived  and  misled  the  theorist  himself  and  his  disciples.  Since  the 
revival  of  letters,  and  in  countries  where  freedom  of  discussion  has  been 
allowed,  objectors  have  arisen,  and  numerous  attempts  have  been  made 
to  shake  the  faith  of  mankind.  That  specious  kind  of  infidelity  known 
by  the  name  of  "  Deism"  made  its  appearance  in  Italy  and  France  about* 
the  middle  of  the  sixteenth  century,  and  in  England  early  in  the  seven- 
teenth. Under  this  appellation,  and  that  of  "  The  Religion  of  Nature," 
each  adopted  to  deceive  the  unwary,  the  attack  upon  Christianity  was 
at  first  cautious,  and  accompanied  with  many  professions  of  regard  for 
its  manifold  excellencies.  Lord  Herbert  of  Cherbury  was  the  first 
who  in  this  country  advocated  this  system.  He  lays  down  five  primary 
articles  of  religion,  as  containing  every  thing  necessary  to  be  believed  •, 
and  as  he  contends  they  are  all  discoverable  by  our  natural  faculties, 
they  supersede,  he  informs  us,  the  necessity  of  a  revelation.     They  are 

(8)  For  an  ample  illustration  of  the  actual  effects  of  Christianity  upon  society, 
■ee  Bishop  Porteus's  Beneficial  Effects  of  Christianity,  and  Ryan's  History  of  the 
Effects  of  Religion  on  Mankind. 


FIRST.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  237 

— that  there  is  a  supreme  God — that  he  is  chiefly  to  be  worshipped — that 
piety  and  virtue  are  the  principal  part  of  his  worship — that  repentance 
expiates  offence — and  that  there  is  a  state  of  future  rewards  and  punish- 
ments. The  history  of  infidelity  from  this  time  is  a  striking  comment 
upon  the  words  of  St.  Paul,  "  But  evil  men  and  seducers  shall  wax  worse 
and  worse,  deceiving  and  being  deceived ;"  for,  in  the  progress  of  this 
deadly  error,  all  Lord  Herbert's  five  articles  of  natural  religion  have 
been  questioned  or  given  up  by  those  who  followed  him  in  his  funda- 
mental principle,  "  that  nothing  can  be  admitted  which  is  not  discover- 
able by  our  natural  faculties."  Hobbes,  who  succeeded  next  in  this 
warfare  against  the  Bible,  if  he  acknowledges  that  there  is  a  God,  repre- 
sents him  as  corporeal,  and  our  duty  to  him  as  a  chimera,  the  civil 
magistrate  being  supreme  in  all  things  both  civil  and  sacred.  Shaftes- 
bury insists  that  the  doctrine  of  rewards  and  punishments  is  degrading 
to  the  understanding  and  detrimental  to  moral  virtue.  Hume  denies  the 
relation  between  cause  and  effect,  and  thus  attempts  to  overthrow  the 
argument  for  the  existence  of  God  from  the  frame  of  the  universe.  By 
others  the  worship  of  God,  which  Lord  Herbert  advocates,  has  been 
rejected  as  unreasonable,  because  he  needs  not  our  praises,  and  is  not 
to  be  turned  from  his  purposes  by  our  prayers.  As  all  law,  of  Divine 
authority,  is  on  this  system  renounced,  so  "  piety  and  virtue"  must  be 
understood  to  be  what  every  man  chooses  to  consider  them,  which 
amounts  to  their  annihilation  ;  and  as  for  future  reward  and  punishment, 
philosophy,  since  Lord  Herbert's  days,  has  discovered  that  the  soul  of 
man  is  material ;  or  rather,  being  a  mere  result  of  the  organization  of  the 
body,  that  it  dies  with  it.  The  great  principle  of  the  English  proto-infidel, 
w  the  sufficiency  of  our  natural  faculties  to  form  a  religion  for  ourselves, 
and  to  decide  upon  the  merits  of  revealed  truth,"  is,  however,  the  princi- 
ple of  all ;  and  this  being  once  conceded,  the  instances  just  given  are 
sufficiently  in  proof  that  the  cable  is  slipped,  and  that  every  one  is  left 
to  take  his  course  wherever  the  winds  and  the  currents  may  impel  his 
unpiloted,  uncharted,  and  uncompassed  bark.  This  grand  principle 
of  error,  between  which  and  absolute  Atheism  there  are  but  a  few  steps, 
has  been  largely  refuted  in  the  foregoing  pages,  and  the  claims  of  the 
Holy  Scriptures  to  be  considered  as  a  revelation  from  God,  established 
by  arguments,  the  force  of  which  in  all  other  cases  is  felt,  and  acknow- 
ledged, and  acted  upon  even  by  unbelievers  themselves.  If  this  has  been 
done  satisfactorily,  the  objections  which  remain  are  of  little  weight,  were 
they  even  less  capable  of  being  repelled ;  and  if  no  answer  can  be  found 
to  some  of  the  difficulties  which  may  be  urged,  this  circumstance  is  much 
more  in  accordance  with  the  truth  of  a  revelation,  than  it  would  be  with 
its  falsehood.  "  We  do  not  deny,"  says  an  excellent  writer  on  the  evi- 
dences of  Christianity,  (Dr.  Olinthus  Gregory,)  "  that  the  scheme  of 
revelation  has  its  difficulties  ;  for  if  the  things  of  nature  are  often  diffi. 


238  THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES.  [PART 

cult  to  comprehend,  it  would  be  strange  indeed  if  supernatural  matters 
were  so  simple,  and  obvious,  and  suited  to  finite  capacities,  as  never  to 
startle  and  puzzle  us  at  all.  He  who  denies  the  Bible  to  have  come 
from  God  because  of  these  difficulties,  may  for  exactly  the  same  reason 
deny  that  the  world  was  formed  by  him." 

The  mere  cavils  of  infidel  writers  may  be  hastily  dismissed  ;  the  most 
plausible  objections  shall  be  considered  more  at  large.  As  to  the  former, 
few  of  them  could  have  been  urged  if  those  who  have  adduced  them  had 
consulted  the  works  of  commentators,  and  Biblical  critics,  writings  with 
which  it  is  evident  they  have  little  acquaintance ;  and  thus  they  have 
shown  how  ill  disposed  they  have  been  to  become  fully  acquainted  with 
the  subjects  which  they  have  subjected  to  their  criticism.  To  this  may 
be  added  their  ignorance  of  the  idiom  of  the  Hebrew,  the  language  of 
the  Old  Testament ;  their  inattention  to  the  ancient  manners  and  cus- 
toms of  the  countries  where  the  sacred  writers  lived,  to  occasional  errors 
in  the  transcription  of  numerous  copies  which  may  be  rectified  by  colla- 
tion, and  to  the  different  readings,  which,  to  a  candid  criticism,  would 
generally  furnish  the  solution  of  the  difficulty. 

The  Bible  has  been  vehemently  assaulted,  because  it  represents  God 
as  giving  command  to  the  Israelites  to  exterminate  the  nations  of  Ca- 
naan ;  but  a  few  remarks  will  be  sufficient  to  prove  how  little  weight 
there  is  in  the  charges  which,  on  this  account,  have  been  made  against 
the  auuior  of  the  Pentateuch.  The  objection  cannot  be  argued  upon 
the  mere  ground  that  it  is  contrary  to  the  Divine  justice  or  mercy  to  cut 
off  a  people  indiscriminately,  from  the  eldest  to  the  youngest,  since  this 
is  do.ie  in  earthquakes,  pestilences,  &.c.  The  cholera  morbus,  which 
has  been  for  four  years  past  wasting  various  parts  of  Asia,  has  probably 
destroyed  half  a  million  of  persons  of  all  ages.  The  character  of  the 
God  of  nature  is  not  therefore  contradicted  by  that  ascribed  to  the  God 
of  the  Bible.  The  whole  objection  resolves  itself  into  this  question : 
Was  it  consistent  with  the  character  of  God  to  employ  human  agents  in 
this  work  of  destruction  1  Who  can  prove  that  it  was  not?  No  one; 
and  yet  here  lies  the  whole  stress  of  the  objection.  The  Jews  were  not 
rendered  more  cruel  by  their  being  so  commissioned ;  for  we  find  them 
much  more  merciful  in  their  institutions  than  other  ancient  nations ; — 
nor  can  this  instance  be  pleaded  in  favour  of  exterminating  wars,  for 
there  was  in  the  case  a  special  commission  for  a  special  purpose,  and 
by  that  it  was  limited.  Other  considerations  are  also  to  be  included. 
The  sins  of  the  Canaanites  were  of  so  gross  a  nature,  that  it  was  neces- 
sary to  mark  them  with  signal  punishments  for  the  benefit  of  surround, 
ing  nations ;  the  employing  of  the  Israelites,  as  instruments  under  a 
special  and  publicly  proclaimed  commission,  connected  the  punishment 
more  visibly  with  the  offence,  than  if  it  had  been  inflicted  by  the  array 
af  warring  elements,  while  the  Israelites  themselves  would  be   more 


FIRST.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  239 

deeply  impressed  with  the  guilt  of  idolatry,  and  its  ever  accompanying 
polluted  and  sanguinary  rites  ;  and  finally  the  Canaanites  had  been  long 
spared,  and  in  the  meantime  both  warned  by  partial  judgments,  and 
reproved  by  the  remaining  adherents  of  the  patriarchal  religion  who 
resided  among  them. 

Thus  the  objection  rests  upon  no  foundation.  The  destruction  of  in. 
fants,  so  often  dwelt  upon,  takes  place  in  nature  and  providence ;  the 
objection  to  the  employment  of  human  agents,  arising  from  habits  of  in. 
humanity  being  thereby  induced,  assumes  what  is  false  in  fact ;  for  this 
effect  upon  the  Jews  was  prevented  by  the  circumstance  of  their  know- 
ing that  they  acted  as  ministers  of  the  Divine  displeasure,  and  under 
his  commission ;  and  some  important  reasons  may  be  discovered  for 
executing  the  judgment  by  men,  and  especially  this,  that  it  might  exhibit 
the  evil  of  a  sanguinary  and  obscene  idolatry. 

That  law  in  Deuteronomy,  which  authorizes  parents,  the  father  and 
the  mother,  to  bring  "  a  stubborn  and  rebellious  son,"  who  was  also  "  a 
glutton  and  a  drunkard,"  before  the  elders  of  the  city,  that,  if  guilty,  he 
might  be  stoned,  has  been  called  inhuman  and  brutal.  In  point  of  fact, 
it  was,  however,  a  merciful  regulation.  In  almost  all  ancient  nations, 
parents  had  the  power  of  taking  away  the  lives  of  their  children.  This 
was  a  branch  of  the  old  patriarchal  authority  which  did  not  all  at  once 
merge  into  the  kingly  governments  which  were  afterward  established. 
There  is  reason  therefore  to  believe  that  it  was  possessed  by  the  heads 
of  families  among  the  Israelites,  and  that  this  was  the  first  attempt  to 
oontrol  it,  by  obliging  the  crimes  alleged  against  tbeir  children  to  be 
proved  before  regular  magistrates,  and  thus  preventing  the  effects  of 
unbridled  passions. 

The  intentional  offering  of  Isaac  by  Abraham  has  also  had  its  share 
of  censure.  The  answer  is,  1.  That  Abraham,  who  was  in  the  habit 
of  sensible  commmunication  with  God,  could  have  no  doubt  of  the  Divine 
command,  and  of  the  right  of  God  to  take  away  the  life  he  had  given. 
2.  That  he  proceeded  to  execute  the  command  of  God,  in  faith,  as  the 
Apostle  Paul  has  stated,  that  God  would  raise  his  son  from  the  dead. 
The  whole  transaction  was  extraordinary,  and  cannot  therefore  be 
judged  by  common  rules ;  and  it  could  only  be  fairly  objected  to,  if  it 
had  been  s;>  stated  as  to  encourage  human  sacrifices.  Here,  however, 
are  sufficient  guards ;  an  indubitable  Divine  command  was  given ;  the 
sacrifice  was  prevented  by  the  same  authority ;  and  the  history  stands 
in  a  book  which  represents  human  sacrifices  as  an  abomination  to  God. 

Indelicacy  and  immodesty  have  been  charged  upon  some  parts  of  the 
Scriptures.  This  objection  has  something  in  it  which  indicates  malig- 
nity, rather  than  an  honest  and  principled  exception:  for  in  no  instance 
are  any  statements  made  in  order  to  incite  impurity ;  and  nothing, 
throughout  the  whole  Scripture,  is  represented  as  more  offensive  to  God, 


240  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES  [PART 

or  as  more  certainly  excluding  persons  from  the  kingdom  of  heaven, 
than  the  unlawful  gratification  of  the  senses.  It  is  also  to  be  noted,  that 
many  of  the  passages  objected  to  are  in  the  laws  and  prohibitions  of 
both  Testaments,  and  as  well  might  the  statute  and  common  law  of  this 
country  be  the  subject  of  reprehension,  and  be  held  up  as  tending  to 
encourage  vices  of  various  kinds,  because  they  must,  with  more  or  less 
of  circumstantiality,  describe  them.  We  are  farther  to  take  into  ac- 
count the  simplicity  of  manners  and  language  in  early  times.  We 
observe,  even  among  the  peasantry  of  modern  states,  a  language,  on 
the  subjects  referred  to,  which  is  more  direct,  and  what  refined  society 
would  call  gross ;  but  greater  real  indelicacy  does  not  necessarily  fol- 
low. Countries  and  classes  of  people  might  be  pointed  out,  where  the 
language  which  expresses  sensual  indulgence  has  more  of  caution  and 
of  periphrasis,  while  the  known  facts  show  that  their  morals  are  ex- 
ceedingly polluted. 

Several  objections  which  have  been  raised  against  characters  and 
transactions  in  the  books  of  Judges,  Samuel,  and  Kings,  are  dissipated 
by  the  single  consideration,  that  where  they  are  obviously  immoral  or 
unjustifiable  they  are  never  approved  ;  and  are  merely  stated  as  facts  of 
history.  The  conduct  of  Ehud,  of  Samson,  and  of  Jephthah,  may  be 
given  as  instances. 

The  advice  of  David,  when  on  his  death  bed,  respecting  Joab  and 
Shimei,  has  been  attributed  to  his  private  resentment.  This  is  not  the 
fact.  He  spoke  in  his  character  of  king  and  magistrate,  and  gave  his 
advice  on  public  grounds,  as  committing  the  kingdom  to  his  son. 

The  conduct  of  David  also  toward  the  Ammonites,  in  putting  them 
"  under  saws  and  harrows  of  iron"  has  been  the  subject  of  severe  ani- 
madversion. But  the  expression  means  no  more  than  that  he  employed 
them  in  laborious  works,  as  sawing,  making  iron  harrows,  hewing  wood, 
and  making  bricks,  the  Hebrew  prefix  signifying  to  as  well  as  tinder. 
"  He  put  them  to  saws  and  harrows  of  iron  (some  render  it  iron  mines,) 
and  to  axes  of  iron,  and  made  them  to  pass  through  the  brick  kiln." 

With  respect  to  the  imprecations  found  in  many  parts  of  Scripture 
and  which  have  been  represented  as  expressions  of  revenge  and  malice, 
it  has  been  often  and  satisfactorily  observed,  that  they  are  predictions 
and  not  anathemas,  the  imperative  mood  being  put  for  the  future  tense, 
according  to  the  Hebrew  idiom. 

These  have  been  adduced  as  specimens  of  the  objections  urged  by 
infidel  writers  against  the  Scriptures,  and  of  the  ease  with  which  they 
may  be  met.  For  others  of  a  similar  kind,  and  for  answers  to  objec- 
tions founded  upon  supposed  contradictions  between  different  passages 
of  Scripture,    reference    must    be   made   to  commentators.  (9">     With 

(9)  See  also  a  copious  collection  of  these  supposed  contradictions,  with  judi. 
cious  explanations,  in  the  Appendix  to  vol.  i,  of  Horne's  Introduction,  &c 


FTHST.]  THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES.  241 

respect  to  all  of  them,  it  has  been  well  observed,  "  that  a  little  skill  in  the 
original  languages  of  the  Scriptures,  their  idioms  and  properties,  and  in 
the  times,  occasions,  and  scope  of  the  several  books,  as  well  as  in  the 
antiquities  and  customs  of  those  countries  which  were  the  scenes  of  the 
transactions  recorded,  will  always  clear  the  main  difficulties." 

To  some  other  objections  of  a  philosophical  kind,  as  being  of  a  more 
imposing  aspect,  the  answers  may  be  more  extended. 

Between  natural  philosophy  and  revelation — the  book  of  nature  and 
the  book  of  God — it  has  been  a  favourite  practice  with  unbelievers  to 
institute  a  contrast,  and  to  set  the  plainness  and  uncontradictory  charac- 
ter of  the  one  against  the  mysteries  and  difficulties  of  the  other.  The 
common  ground  on  which  all  such  objections  rest,  is  an  unwillingness 
to  admit  as  truth,  and  to  receive  as  established  and  authorized  doctrine, 
what  is  incomprehensible.  They  contend,  that  if  a  revelation  has  been 
made,  there  can  be  no  mystery  in  it,  for  that  is  a  contradiction ;  and\ 
that  if  mysteries,  that  is,  things  incomprehensible,  are  held  to  be  a  part 
of  it,  this  is  fatal  to  its  claims  as  a  revelation.  The  sophism  is  easily, 
answered.  Many  doctrines,  many  duties,  are  comprehensible  enough  t 
no  mystery  at  all  is  involved  in  them  ;  and  as  to  incomprehensible  sub- 
*ects,  nothing  is  more  undoubted,  as  we  have  already  shown,  than  that 
a  fact  may  be  the  subject  of  revelation,  as  that  God  is  eternal  and  onv 
nipresent,  and  still  remain  mysterious  and  incomprehensible.  The  fact 
itself  is  not  hidden,  or  expressed  in  language  or  symbol  so  equivocal  as 
to  throw  the  meaning  into  difficulty,  the  only  sense  in  which  the  argu- 
ment could  be  valid.  As  a  fact,  it  is  clearly  revealed  that  these,  are 
attributes  of  the  Divine  Nature  ;  but  both,  notwithstanding  that  clear  and 
indubitable  revelation,  are  still  incomprehensible.  It  is  not  revealed 
how  God  is  eternal  and  omnipresent,  nor  is  such  a  revelation  pretended  ; 
but  it  is  revealed  that  He  is  so — not  how  a  trinity  of  persons  exists 
in  unity  of  essence  ;  but  that  such  is  the  mode  of  the  Divine  existence. 
If  however  men  hesitate  to  admit  incomprehensible  subjects  as  matters 
of  faith,  they  cannot  be  permitted  to  fly  for  relief  from  revelation  to 
philosophy,  and  much  less  to  set  up  its  superior  claims,  as  to  clearness 
of  manifestation,  to  the  Holy  Scriptures.  There  too  it  will  be  seen, 
that  mystery  and  revelation  go  inseparably  together ;  that  he  who  will 
not  admit  the  mystery  cannot  ^iave  the  benefit  of  the  revelation ;  and 
that  he  who  takes  the  revelation  of  facts,  embraces  at  the  same  time  the 
mystery  of  their  causes.  The  facts,  for  instance,  of  the  attraction  of 
gravitation,  of  cohesion,  of  electricity,  of  magnetism,  of  congelation, 
of  thawing,  of  evaporation,  are  all  admitted.  The  experimental  and 
inductive  philosophy  of  modern  times,  has  made  many  revelations  of  the 
relations  and  in  some  instances  of  the  proximate  causes  of  these  pheno- 
mena ;  but  the  real  causes  are  all  confessedly  hidden.  With  respect 
to  mechanics,  says  a  writer  who  has  devoted  his  life  to  philosophical 

Vol.  I  •  16 


242  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

studies,  (Dr.  Gregory's  Letters  on  the  Christian  Religion,)  "  this  science 
is  conversant  about  force,  matter,  time,  motion,  space ;  each  of  these  has 
occasioned  the  most  elaborate  disquisitions,  and  the  most  violent  disputes. 
Let  it  be  asked,  What  is  force?  If  the  answerer  be  candid,  his  reply 
will  be,  '  I  cannot  tell  so  as  to  satisfy  every  inquirer,  or  so  as  to  enter 
into  the  essence  of  the  thing.'  Again,  What  is  matter  ?  *  I  cannot  tell.' 
What  is  motion  ?  '  I  cannot  tell ;' "  and  so  of  the  rest.  "  The  fact  of  the 
communication  of  motion  from  one  body  to  another,  is  as  inexplicable 
as  the  communication  of  Divine  influences.  How,  then,  can  the  former 
be  admitted  with  any  face,  while  the  latter  is  denied  solely  on  the  ground 
of  its  incomprehensibility  ? 

"  But  perhaps  I  may  be  told,  that  although  things  which  are  incom- 
prehensible occur  in  our  physical  and  mixed  inquiries,  they  have  no 
place  in  <  pure  mathematics,  where  all  is  not  only  demonstrable,  but  in- 
telligible.' This,  again,  is  an  assertion  which  I  cannot  admit ;  and  for 
the  denial  of  which  I  shall  beg  leave  to  produce  my  reasons,  as  this 
will,  I  apprehend,  make  still  more  in  favour  of  my  general  argument. 
Now,  here  it  is  known,  geometricians  can  demonstrate  that  there  are 
curves  which  approach  continually  to  some  fixed  right  line,  without  tho 
possibility  of  ever  meeting  it.  Such,  for  example,  are  hyperbolas, 
which  continually  approach  toward  their  asymptotes,  but  cannot  possi- 
bly meet  them,  unless  an  assignable  finite  space  can  become  equal  to 
nothing.  Such,  again,  are  conchoids,  which  continually  approach  to 
their  directrices,  yet  can  never  meet  them,  unless  a  certain  point  can 
be  both  beyond  and  in  contact  with  a  given  line  at  the  same  moment. 
Mathematicians  can  also  demonstrate  that  a  space  infinite  in  one  sense, 
may,  by  its  rotation,  generate  a  solid  of  finite  capacity ;  as  is  the  case 
with  the  solid  formed  by  the  rotation  of  a  logarithmic  curve  of  infinite 
length  upon  its  axis,  or  that  formed  by  the  rotation  of  an  Apollonian 
hyperbola  upon  its  asymptote.  They  can  also  show  in  numerous  in- 
stances, that  a  variable  space  shall  be  continually  augmenting,  and  yet 
never  become  equal  to  a  certain  finite  quantity  ;  and  they  frequently 
make  transformations  with  great  facility  and  neatness,  by  means  of  ex- 
pressions to  which  no  definite  ideas  can  be  attached.  Can  we,  for 
example,  obtain  any  clear  comprehension,  or  indeed  any  notion  at  all, 
of  thofvalue  of  a  power  whose  exponent  is  an  acknowledged  imaginary 
quantity,  as  x  / — 1  ?  Can  we,  in  like  manner,  obtain  any  distinct  idea 
of  a  series  constituted  of  an  infinite  number  of  terms  1  In  each  case 
the  answer,  I  am  convinced,  must  be  in  the  negative.  Yet  the  science, 
in  which  these  and  numerous  other  incomprehensibles  occur,  is  called 
Mathesis,  the  discipline,  because  of  its  incomparable  superiority  to 
other  studies  in  evidence  and  certainty,  and,  therefore,  its  singular  adap- 
tation to  discipline  the  mind.  How  does  it  happen,  now,  that  when  the 
investigation  is  bent  toward  objects  which  cannot  be  comprehended,  the 


F1KST.J  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  243 

mind  arrives  at  that  in  which  it  acquiesces  as  certainty,  and  rests  satis- 
fied ?  It  is  not,  manifestly,  because  we  have  a  distinct  perception  of  the 
nature  of  the  objects  of  the  inquiry  ;  (for  that  is  precluded  by  the  sup- 
position, and,  indeed,  by  the  preceding  statement,)  but  because  we  have 
such  a  distinct  perception  of  the  relation  which  those  objects  bear  one 
toward  another,  and  can  assign  positively,  without  danger  of  error,  the 
exact  relation,  as  to  identify  or  diversity,  of  the  quantities  before  us,  at 
every  step  of  the  process." 

Modern  astronomy  has  displayed  the  immense  extent  of  the  universe 
and  by  analogical  reasoning  has  made  it  probable,  at  least,  that  the 
planets  of  our  and  of  other  systems  may  be  inhabited  by  rational  and  moral 
beings  like  ourselves ;  and  from  these  premises  infidel  philosophy  has 
argued  with  apparent  humility  lor  the  insignificance  of  the  human  race, 
and  the  improbability  of  supposing  that  a  Divine  person  should  have  been 
sent  into  this  world  for  its  instruction  and  salvation,  when,  in  comparison 
with  the  solar  system,  it  is  but  a  point,  and  that  system  itself,  in  comparison 
of  the  universe,  may  be  nothing  more. 

Plausible  as  this  may  appear,  nothing  can  have  less  weight,  even  if 
only  the  philosophy  and  not  the  theology  of  the  case  be  taken  into  con- 
sideration. The  intention  with  which  man  is  thus  compared  with  the 
universe  is  to  prove  his  insignificance  ;  and  the  comparison  must  be 
made  either  between  man  and  the  vaslness  of  planetary  and  stellar  matter, 
or  between  the  number  of  mankind,  and  the  number  of  supposed  planet- 
ary inhabitants.  If  the  former,  we  may  reply  with  Dr.  Beattie,  "Great 
extent  is  a  thing  so  striking  to  our  imagination,  that  sometimes,  in  the 
moment  of  forgetfulne'ss,  we  are  apt  to  think  nothing  can  be  import- 
ant but  what  is  of  vast  corporeal  magnitude.  And  yet,  even  to  our 
apprehension,  when  we  are  willing  to  be  rational,  how  much  more  sublime 
and  more  interesting  an  object  is  a  mind  like  that  of  Newton,  than  the 
unwieldy  force  and  brutal  stupidity  of  such  a  monster  as  the  poets  describe 
Poh  phemus  ?  Who,  that  had  it  in  his  power,  would  scruple  to  destroy  a 
whale  in  order  to  save  a  child  ?  Nay,  when  compared  with  the  happiness 
of  one  immortal  mind,  the  greatest  imaginable  accumulation  of  inanimate 
substance  must  appear  an  insignificant  thing.  '  If  we  consider,'  says 
Bentley,  '  the  dignity  of  an  intelligent  being,  and  put  that  in  the  scale 
against  brute  and  inanimate  matter,  we  may  affirm,  without  overvaluing 
human  nature,  that  the  soul  of  one  virtuous  man  is  of  greater  worth  and 
excellency,  than  the  sun  and  his  planets,  and  all  the  stars  in  the  world.' 
Let  us  not  then  make  bulk  the  standard  of  value;  or  judge  of  the  import- 
ance of  man  from  the  weight  of  his  body,  or  from  the  size  or  situation 
of  the  planet  that  is  now  his  place  of  abode." 

To  the  same  effect  an  ingenious  and  acute  writer  remarks  upon  a 
passage  in  Saussure,  ( Voyages  dans  les  Alpes,)  who  speaks  of  men  in  the 
phrase  of  the  modern  philosophy,  as  "  the  little  beings  which  crawl  upon 


'244  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

the  surface  of  the  earth,"  and  as  shrinking  into  nothing  both  as  to  "  space 
and  time,"  in  comparison  with  the  vast  mountains  and  "  the  great  epochas 
of  nature."  "  If,"  says  Mr.  Granville  Penn,  (Comparative  Estimate  of 
'he  Mineral  and  Mosaic  Geologies,)  "  there  is  any  sense  or  virtue  in  this 
reflection,  it  must  consist  in  duly  estimating  the  relative  importance  of 
the  two  magnitudes  and  durations,  and  in  concluding  logically,  the  com- 
parative  insignificancy  of  the  smaller.  And  it  will  then  necessarily  follow, 
that  the  insignificancy  of  the  smaller  would  lessen,  in  the  same  proportion 
in  which  it  might  increase  in  bulk.  If  the  little  beings  therefore  were 
to  be  magnified  in  the  proportions  of  2,  3,  4,  &c,  their  insignificancy, 
relatively  to  the  great  features  of  the  globe,  would  necessarily  diminish 
in  the  same  ratio.  The  smaller  the  disproportion  between  the  man  and 
the  mountain,  the  less  would  be  the  relative  insignificance  of  the  former ; 
and  although  the  increase  of  magnitude  in  the  smaller  object  be  ever  so 
inconsiderable,  yet  if  it  is  positive  and  real,  its  dignity  must  be  proportion, 
ately  increased  in  the  true  nature  of  things :  the  bigger  the  being  that 
crawls  upon  the  surface  of  this  globe,  the  less  absurd  would  be  the  sup- 
position that  he  is  the  final  object  of  this  terrestrial  creation.  The  Irish 
giant,  therefore,  whose  altitude  exceeded  the  measure  of  eight  feet, 
would  exceed  in  relative  dignity,  by  the  same  proportion,  Bacon  and 
Newton,  whose  height  did  not  attain  to  six  feet.  If  this  is  nonsense, 
then  must  that  also  be  nonsense  from  which  it  is  the  genuine  conclusion  : 
viz.  that  the  material  magnitudes  of  the  little  beings,  or  their  duration 
upon  the  earth  on  which  they  'crawl?  determines,  in  any  manner, 
their  importance,  in  the  creation,  relatively  to  the  primordial  mountains 
which  arise  above  it,  or  to  the  extent  of  the  regions  which  may  be  sur- 
veyed from  their  summits.  For  if  the  same  physically  small  beings  pos- 
sess another  magnitude,  which  can  be  brought  to  another  and  a  different 
scale  of  computation  from  that  of  physical  or  material  magnitude  ;  a  scale 
infinitely  surpassing  in  importance  the  greatest  measures  of  that  magnitude ; 
then  there  will  be  nothing  astonishing  or  irrational  in  the  supposition, 
that  the  highest  mountains,  and  the  widest  regions,  and  the  entire  system 
to  which  they  pertain,  may  be  subservient  to  the  ends  of  those  beings, 
and  to  that  other  system  to  which  they  pertain  ;  which  latter  will  thus 
be  found  superior  in  importance  to  the  former.  Such  a  scale  is  that,  by 
which  the  intelligent,  moral,  and  immortal  nature  of  man  is  to  be  measured, 
and  which  the  sacred  historian  calls,  a  formation  ( after  the  image  and 
likeness  of  Gov  ;'  a  scale  so  little  taken  into  the  contemplation  of  the 
science  of  mere  physics.  As  soon,  however,  as  that  moral  scale  of 
magnitude  once  supersedes  the  physical  scale  in  the  apprehension  of  the 
mind  ;  as  soon  as  the  mind  perceives,  that  the  duration  of  that  intelligent 
moral  nature  infinitely  exceeds  the  vastest  '  epocha  of  nature'  which  the 
imagination  of  the  mineral  geology  can  represent  to  itself,  and  that, 
though  the  physical  nature  of  man  is  limited  to  a  very  small  measure  of 


FIRST.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  245 

time,  yet  his  moral  nature  is  unlimited  in  time,  and  will  outlast  all  the 
mountains  of  the  globe ;  it  then  perceives,  at  the  same  moment,  the 
counterfeit  quality  of  the  reflection,  which  at  first  appeared  so  sublime 
and  so  humble,  so  profound  and  so  devout.  The  sublimity  and  humility 
betray  themselves  to  be  the  disparagement  and  degradation  of  our  nature  ; 
the  profundity  is  found  to  be  mere  surface,  and  the  devotion  to  be  a 
retrocession  from  the  light  of  revelation." 

If  the  comparison  of  man  with  mere  material  magnitude  will  not  then 
support  this  effort  to  effect  his  degradation,  and  to  shame  him  out  of  his 
trust  in  the  loving  kindness  of  his  God ;  if  the  comparison  be  made 
between  things  which  have  no  relations  in  common,  and  is  therefore 
absurd ;  as  little  will  it  serve  this  unnatural  attempt  to  prostrate  man  to 
an  insect  rank,  and  to  inspire  him  with  reptile  feelings,  to  conclude  his 
insignificance  from  the  number  of  other  beings.     For  it  is  plain  that  their 
number  alters  not  his  real  character ;  he  is  still  immortal,  though  myriads 
beside  him  are  immortal,  and  still  he  has  his  deep  capacity  of  pleasure 
and  of  pain.     Unless,  therefore,  it  could  be  proved  that  the  care  of  God 
for  each  must  be  diminished  as  the  number  of  his  creatures  is  increased  ; 
there  is,  as  Mr.  Penn  has  stated  it,  neither  "  sense  nor  virtue"  in  such 
reflections  upon  the  littleness  of  man ;  and  they  imply,  indeed,  a  base 
and  an  unworthy  reflection  upon  the  supreme  Creator  himself,  as  though 
he  could  not  bestow  upon  all  the  beings  he  has  made  a  care  and  a  love 
adequate  to  their  circumstances.     What  man  is  with  respect  to  God,  can 
only  be  collected  from  the  Divine  procedures  toward  him ;  and  these 
are  sufficient  to  excite  the  devout  exclamations  of  the  psalmist,  "  What 
is  man  (hat  thou  art  mindful  of  him  ?  or  the  son  of  man  that  thou 
visitest  him  ?"   That  he  has  not  only  been  made  by  God,  but  that  he 
is  governed  by  his  providence,  none  but  Atheists  will  deny ;  but  any 
argument  drawn  from  such  premises  as  the  above  would  conclude  as 
forcibly  against  providence,   as  it  can  be  made  to  conclude  against 
redemption.      "  Our  .Saviour,"  says    Dr.   Beattie,   "  as  if  to   obviate 
objections  of  this  nature,  expresses  most  emphatically  the  superintending 
care  of  Providence,  when  he  teaches  that  it  is  God  who  adorns  the  grass 
of  the  field,  that  without  him  a  sparrow  falls  not  on  the  ground,  and  that 
even  the  hairs  of  our  head  are  numbered.     Yet  this  is  no  exaggeration ; 
but  must,  if  God  is  omniscient  and  almighty,  be  literally  true.     By  a 
stupendous  exuberance  of  animal,  vegetable,  and  mineral  production,  and 
by  an  apparatus  still  more  stupendous  (if  that  were  possible)  for  the  dis- 
tribution of  light  and  heat,  he  supplies  the  means- of  life  and  comfort  to 
the  short-lived  inhabitants  of  this  globe.     Can  it  then  appear  incredible  ; 
nay,  does  not  this  consideration  render  it  in  the  highest  degree  probable, 
that  he  has  also  prepared  the  means  of  eternal  happiness  for  beings, 
whom  he  has  formed  for  eternal  duration,  whom  he  has  endowed  with 
faculties  so  noble  as  those  of  the  human  soul,  and  for  whose  accommo 


24G  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

dation  chiefly,  during  their  present  stnto  of  trial,  he  has  provided  all  the 
magnificence  of  this  sublunary  world?" 

There  is,  however,  another  consideration,  which  gives  a  sublime  and 
overwhelming  grandeur  to  the  Scripture  view  of  the  redemption  of  the 
race  of  man,  and  of  which,  for  the  want  of  acquaintance  with  our  sacred 
writings,  infidel  philosophers  appear  never  to  have  entertained  the  least 
conception.  It  is  the  moral  connection  of  this  world  with  the  whole 
universe  of  intelligent  creatures  ;  and  the  "  intention"  there  was  in  the 
Divine  mind  to  convey  to  other  beings,  by  the  history  and  great  results 
of  his  moral  government  over  one  branch  of  his  universal  family,  a  view 
of  his  own  perfections  ;  of  the  duties  and  dangers  of  created  and  finite 
beings ;  of  transgression  and  holiness,  in  their  principles  and  in  their 
effects ;  by  a  course  of  action  so  much  more  influential  than  abstract 
truth.  Intimations  of  this  great  and  impressive  view  are  found  in  various 
passages  of  the  New  Testament,  and  it  opens  a  scene  of  inconceivable 
moral  magnificence — "  To  the  intent,  that  to  the  principalities  and  powers 
in  heavenly  places  might  be  known  by  the  Church  the  manifold  wisdom 
of  God."  (1) 

It  has  been  objected  to  the  Mosaic  chronology,  that  it  fixes  the  era 
of  creation  only  about  four  thousand  years  earlier  than  the  Christian 
era ;  and  against  this,  evidence  has  been  brought  from  two  sources — 
the  chronology  of  certain  ancient  nations,  and  the  structure  of  the 
earth. 

The  objections  drawn  from  the  former  of  these  sources  have  of  late 
rapidly  weakened,  and  are  in  fact  given  up  by  many  whose  deference 
to  the  authority  of  Scripture  is  very  slight,  though  but  a  few  years  ago 
nothing  was  more  confidently  urged  by  skeptical  writers  than  the  refu- 
tation of  Moses  by  the  Chinese,  Hindoo,  and  Egyptian  chronologies, 
founded,  as  it  was  then  stated,  on  very  ancient  astronomical  observations 

(1)  "  In  this  our  first  period  of  existence,  our  eye  cannot  penetrate  beyond  the 
present  scene,  and  the  human  race  appears  one  great  and  separate  community ; 
but  with  other  worlds,  and  other  communities,  we  probably  may,  and  every  argu- 
ment for  the  truth  of  our  religion  gives  us  reason  to  think  that  we  shall,  be  con- 
nected hereafter.  And  if  by  our  behaviour  we  may,  even  while  here,  as  our  Lord 
positively  affirms,  heighten  in  some  degree  the  felicity  of  angels,  our  salvation 
may  hereafter  be  a  matter  of  importance,  not  to  us  only,  but  to  many  other  orders 
of  immortal  beings.  They,  it  is  true,  will  not  suffer  for  our  guilt,  nor  be  rewarded 
for  our  obedience.  But  it  is  not  absurd  to  imagine,  that  our  fall  and  recovery  may 
be  useful  to  them  as  an  example  ;  and  that  the  Divine  grace  manifested  in  our 
redemption  may  raise  their  adoration  and  gratitude  into  higher  raptures,  and 
quicken  their  ardour  to  inquire  with  ever  new  delight,  into  the  dispensations  of 
infinite  wisdom.  This  is  not  mere  conjecture.  It  derives  plausibility  from  many 
analogies  in  nature,  as  well  as  from  Holy  Writ,  which  represents  the  mystery  of 
our  redemption  as  an  object  of  curiosity  to  superior  beings,  and  our  repentance  a* 
an  occasion  of  their  joy."  (Dr.  Beattik's  Evidences  of  the  Christian  Religion 
See  also  Dr.  Chalmers's  Discourses  on  the  Modern  Astronomy.) 


FIRST.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  247 

preserved  to  the  present  day.  It  is  however  now  clearly  proved,  that 
the  astronomical  tables,  from  which  it  has  been  attempted  to  assign  a 
prodigious  antiquity  to  the  Hindoos,  have  been  calculated  backward ; 
(Cuvier's  Theory  of  the  Earth ;)  and  among  the  Chinese  the  earliest 
astronomical  observation  that  appears  to  rest  upon  good  grounds,  is  now 
found  ttte  one  made  not  more  than  two  thousand  nine  hundred  years 
ago.  (Cuvier's  Theory  of  the  Earth.)  As  for  the  conclusion  drawn 
from  the  supposed  zodiacs  in  the  temples  of  Esneh  and  Dendara  in 
Egypt,  it  is  now  strongly  doubted  whether  the  figures  represented  upon 
them  are  astronomical  or  mythological,  that  is,  whether  they  are  zodiacs 
at  all.  Their  astronomical  character  is  strongly  denied  by  Dr.  Richard, 
son,  a  late  traveller,  who  examined  them  with  great  care ;  and  who 
gives  large  reasons  for  his  opinion.  Even  if  the  astronomical  character 
of  these  assumed  zodiacs  be  allowed,  they  are  found  to  prove  nothing. 
M.  Biot,  an  eminent  French  mathematician,  has  recently  fixed  the  date 
of  the  oldest  of  them  at  only  seven  hundred  and  sixteen  years  before 
Christ. 

Against  the  excessive  antiquity  assigned  to  some  ancient  states,  or 
claimed  by  them,  the  science  of  geology  has  at  length  entered  its  pro- 
test ;  and  though,  as  we  shall  presently  see,  it  has  originated  chrono- 
logical objections  to  the  Mosaic  date  of  the  creation,  on  the  origin  of 
nations  it  has  made  a  full  concession  to  the  history  of  the  Scriptures. 
Cuvier  observes — "  By  a  careful  investigation  of  what  has  taken  place 
on  the  surface  of  the  globe  since  it  has  been  laid  dry  for  the  last  time, 
and  its  continents  have  assumed  their  present  form,  at  least  in  such  parts 
as  are  somewhat  elevated  above  the  level  of  the  ocean,  it  may  be  clearly 
seen  that  this  revolution,  and  consequently  the  establishment  of  our 
existing  societies,  could  not  have  been  very  ancient."  (Theory  of  the 
Earth.)  D'Aubuisson  remarks,  "that  the  soils  of  all  the  plains  were 
deposited  in  the  bosom  of  a  tranquil  water ;  that  their  actual  order  is 
only  to  be  dated  from  the  retreat  of  that  water ;  and  that  the  date  of 
that  period  is  not  very  ancient."  {Traite  de  Geognosie.)  "  Dolomieu, 
Saussure,  De  Luc,  and  the  most  distinguished  naturalists  of  the  age, 
have  coincided  in  this  conclusion,  to  which  they  have  been  led  by  the 
evidence  of  various  monuments  and  natural  chronometers  which  the 
earth  exhibits ;  and  which  remain  perpetual  vouchers  for  the  veracity 
of  the  Mosaic  chronology,  with  respect  to  the  epocha  of  the  revolution 
which  the  Mosaical  history  relates."  (2) 

(2)  Penn's  Comparative  Estimate,  <J-e.  Professor  Jamieson,  in  his  Mineralo. 
gical  Illustrations  of  Cuvier's  Theory,  observes,  "The  front  of  Salisbury  Craigg 
near  Edinburgh,  affords  a  fine  example  of  the  natural  chronometer,  described  in 
the  text.  The  acclivity  is  covered  with  loose  masses  that  have  fallen  from  the 
hill  itself;  and  the  quantity  of  debris  is  in  proportion  to  the  time  which  has 
elapsed  since  the  waters  of  the  ocean  formerly  covered  the  neighbouring  country 


248  THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES.  [PART 

From  the  absence  of  all  counter  evidence  in  the  records  of  ancient 
nations,  as  well  as  from  these  philosophical  conclusions,  which  are  to  be 
considered  in  the  light  of  concessions  made  to  the  chronology  of  the 
Pentateuch,  we  may  therefore  conclude,  that,  as  to  the  origin  of  nations 
and  the  period  of  the  general  deluge,  the  testimony  of  Scripture  remains 
unshaken. 

Geology  has,  however,  objected  to  the  Mosaic  date  of  the  creation 
of  the  earth,  which  it  is  said  affords  a  period  too  limited  to  account  for 
various  phenomena  which  modern  researches  have  brought  under  con- 
sideration. To  the  last  general  inundation  of  the  earth,  it  is  allowed, 
that  no  higher  a  date  can  be  assigned  than  that  which  Moses  ascribes  to 
the  flood  of  Noah ;  but  several  revolutions,  each  of  which  has  changed 
the  surface  of  the  earth,  are  contended  for,  separated  from  each  other 
by  long  intervals  of  time  ;  and,  above  all,  it  is  assumed,  that  the  elements 
of  the  primitive  earths  were  contained  in  an  "  original  chaotic  fluid,*' 
and  that,  in  obeying  the  laws  of  the  affinity  of  composition,  they  coalesced 
and  grouped  themselves  together  in  different  manners,  and  settled  them- 
selves into  order,  according  to  certain  laws  of  matter  after  an  unassign- 
able series  of  ages.  These  are  the  views  of  Cuvier,  D'Aubuisson,  De 
Luc,  and  other  eminent  writers  on  this  subject ;  and  whatever  they 
themselves  might  intend,  they  have  been  made  use  of  by  infidels  to  dis- 
credit the  authority  of  the  sacred  historian.  It  has  been  replied,  that 
the  Bible  not  being  intended  to  teach  philosophy,  it  is  not  fair  to  try  it 
by  a  philosophical  standard.  This  however  cannot  be  maintained  in  the 
case  before  us,  though  the  observation  is  pertinent  in  others,  as  when 
the  sun  is  said  to  have  stood  still,  popular  language  being  adopted  to 
render  the  Scriptures  intelligible.  If  Moses  professes  by  Divine  inspi- 
ration to  give  an  account  of  the  manner  in  which  the  world  was  framed, 
he  must  describe  the  facts  as  they  occurred ;  and  if  he  has  assigned  a 
date  to  its  creation  out  of  nothing,  that  date,  if  given  by  an  infallible 
authority,  cannot  be  contradicted  by  true  philosophy. 

To  allow  time  sufficient  for  the  gradual  processes  of  "  precipitation 
and  crystalization,"  by  which  the  first  formations  of  the  solid  earth  are 
said  to  have  been  effected,  others  have  conceded  to  the  geologists  of 
this  class,  that  an  antiquity  of  the  earth  much  higher  than  that  which 
appears  on  the  face  of  the  Mosaic  account  may  be  allowed  without  con- 
tradicting it,  and  be  even  deduced  from  it.  They  therefore  interpret 
the  "  days"  mentioned  in  the  first  chapter  of  Genesis  as  successive  pe- 
riods of  ages,  and  the  evening  and  morning  of  those  days  are  made  the 

If  a  vast  period  of  time  had  elapsed  since  the  surface  of  the  earth  had  assumed 
its  present  aspect,  it  is  evident  that  long  ere  now  the  whole  of  this  hill  would 
have  been  enveloped  in  its  own  debris.  We  have  here  then  a  proof  of  the  com- 
■paratively  short  period  since  the  waters  left  the  surface  of  the  globe,— a  period 
not  exceeding  a  few  thousand  years." 


FIRST.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  249 

beginnings  and  ends  of  those  imagined  periods.  (3)  This  interpretation 
is,  however,  too  forced  to  be  admitted  in  the  case  of  so  simple  a  narra- 
tive as  that  of  Moses ;  and  there  would  be  as  good  a  reason  for  thus 
extending  the  duration  of  the  term  "  day"  whenever  it  occurs  in  his 
writings  to  an  indefinite  period,  to  the  destruction  of  all  chronological 
accurAy  and  of  all  sobriety  of  writing.  No  true  friend  of  revelation 
will  wish  to  see  Moses  defended  against  the  assaults  of  philosophy  in  a 
manner  which,  by  obliging  us  to  find  a  meaning  in  his  writings  far  re- 
mote from  the  view  of  general  readers,  would  render  them  inapplicable 
to  the  purpose  of  ordinary  instruction.  Beside,  if  we  are  to  understand 
the  first  day  to  have  been  of  indefinite  length,  a  hundred,  or  a  thousand, 
or  a  million  of  years,  for  instance,  why  not  the  seventh,  the  Sabbath  also  ? 
This  opinion  cannot  therefore  be  consistently  maintained,  and  we  must 
conclude  with  Rosenmuller,  "  Dies  intelligendi  sunt  naturales,  quorum 
unusquisque  ab  una  vespera  incipiens,  altera  terminatur ;  quo  modo  Judeei, 
et  multi  alii  antiquissimi  populi,  dies  numerarunt — that  we  are  to  under- 
stand natural  days ;  each  of  which  commencing  from  one  evening  is 
terminated  by  the  next ;  in  which  manner  the  Jews,  and  many  others  of 
the  most  ancient  nations,  reckoned  days." 

By  other  believers  in  revelation  who  have  allowed  the  two  principles 
laid  down  by  geologists  to  go  unquestioned,  viz.  the  original  liquidity  of 
the  earth,  holding  the  elements  of  all  the  subsequent  formations  in  a  state 
of  solution  ;  and  the  necessity  of  a  long  course  of  ages  to  complete  those 
processes  by  which  the  earth  should  be  brought  into  a  fit  state,  so  to 
speak,  for  the  work  of  the  six  days,  which  in  that  case  must  be  confined 
to  mere  arrangement ;  another,  and  certainly  a  less  objectionable  inter- 
pretation of  Moses  than  that  which  makes  his  natural  days  and  nights 
terms  for  indefinite  periods  of  time,  has  been  adopted.  "  Does  Moses 
ever  say,  that  when  God  created  the  heavens  and  the  earth,  he  did  more 
at  the  time  alluded  to  than  transform  them  out  of  previously  existing 
materials  ?  Or  does  he  ever  say,  that  there  was  not  an  interval  of  many 
ages  between  the  first  act  of  creation,  described  in  the  first  verse  of  the 
book  of  Genesis,  and  said  to  have  been  performed  at  the  beginning ; 
and  those  more  detailed  operations  the  account  of  which  commences  at 
the  second  verse,  and  which  are  described  to  us  as  having  been  per- 
formed in  so  many  days  ?  Or,  finally,  does  he  ever  make  us  to  under- 
stand that  the  genealogies  of  man  went  any  farther  than  to  fix  the 
antiquity  of  the  species,  and,  of  consequence,  that  they  left  the  antiquity 

(3)  "  Most  readers  have  presumed,  that  every  night  and  day  mentioned  in  the 
first  chapter  of  Genesis  must  be  strictly  confined  to  the  term  of  twenty-four  hours, 
though  there  can  be  no  doubt  but  that  Moses  never  intended  any  such  thing ;  for 
how  could  Moses  intend  to  limit  the  duration  of  the  day  to  its  present  length, 
before,  according  to  his  own  showing,  the  sun  had  begun  to  divide  the  day  from 
the  night  ?"     (Mantell's  Geology  of  Sussex.) 


250  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  (PART 

of  the  globe  a  free  subject  for  the  speculations  of  philosophers  1  We  do 
not  pledge  ourselves  for  the  truth  of  one  or  all  of  these  suppositions,  nor 
is  it  necessary  we  should.  It  is  enough  that  any  of  them  is  infinitely 
more  rational,  than  the  rejection  of  Christianity  in  the  face  of  its  his- 
torical evidence."  (Chalmers's  Evidences  of  the  Christian  Revelation.) 
"As  to  the  period  when  this  mass  was  made,  Moses  only  says  that  it 
was  *  in  the  beginning^ — a  period  this,  which  might  have  been  a  million 
of  years  before  its  arrangement."  (Maxell's  Geology  of  Sussex.) 

To  all  these  suppositions,  though  not  unsupported  by  the  authority  of 
some  great  critics,  there  are  considerable  objections ;  and  if  the  diffi- 
culty of  reconciling  geological  phenomena  with  the  Mosaic  chronology 
were  greater  than  it  appears,  none  of  them  ought  hastily  to  be  admitted. 
That  creation,  in  the  first  verse  of  Genesis,  signifies  production  out  of 
nothing,  and  not  out  of  pre-existent  matter,  though  the  original  word 
may  be  used  in  both  senses,  is  made  a  matter  of  faith  by  the  Apostle 
Paul,  who  tells  us,  "  that  the  things  which  are  seen,  were  not  made  of 
things  which  do  appear ;"  ft*]  re  (paivofjisvwv  to.  /3Xstfo/xsva  yeyovsvai ;  which 
is  sufficient  to  settle  that  point.  By  the  same  important  passage  it  is 
also  determined,  that  "  the  worlds  were  produced  in  their  form,  as  well 
as  substance,  instantly  out  of  nothing  ;  or  it  would  not  be  true,  that  they 
were  not  made  of  things  which  do  appear."  "  The  apostle  states  that 
these  things  were  not  made  out  of  a  pre-existent  matter;  for,  if  they  were, 
that  matter,  however  extended  or  modified,  must  appear  in  that  thing  into 
which  it  is  compounded  and  modified ;  therefore  it  could  not  be  said, 
that  the  things  which  are  seen,  are  not  made  of  things  that  appear :  and 
he  shows  us  also,  by  these  words,  that  the  present  mundane  fabric  was 
not  formed  or  re-formed  from  one  anterior,  as  some  suppose."  (Dr.  A 
Clarke  in  loc.)  No  interval  of  time  is  allowed  in  the  account  of  the 
creation  by  Moses,  between  the  creating  and  the  framing  of  the  worlds, 
(that  is,  the  heavens  and  the  earth  simply,)  so  created  and  framed  at 
once  by  the  word  of  God.  The  natural  sense  too  of  the  phrase  "  in  the 
beginning,"  is  also  thus  preserved.  Thrown  back,  so  to  speak,  into 
eternity  without  reference  to  time  it  has  no  meaning,  or  at  best  a  very 
obscure  one  ;  but  connected  with  time,  the  commencement  of  our  mun- 
dane chronology,  it  has  a  definite  and  obvious  sense.  Moses  begins  his 
reckoning  from  the  first  creative  act; — from  the  creation  of  the  "heavens 
and  the  earth,"  which  was  therefore  a  part  of  the  work  of  the  first  natu- 
ral day.  "  In  the  first  of  these  natural  days,  the  whole  mineral  fabric 
of  this  globe  was  formed  at  once,  of  such  size  and  figure,  with  such  pro- 
perties, in  such  proportions  to  space,  and  with  such  arrangement  of  its 
materials,  as  most  conduced  to  the  ends  for  which  God  created  it."  (4) 

(4)  This  view  is  totally  inconsistent  with  the  favourite  notion  of  certain  mo- 
dern geologists  of  a  primitive  chaotic  ocean,  containing  like  that  of  the  heathen 


FIRST.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  251 

It  will  now  be  observed,  that  if  such  interpretations  of  the  Mosaic 
account  cannot  be  allowed,  the  decisions  of  Scripture  and  some  of  the 
modern  speculations  in  geology,  must  be  left  directly  to  oppose  each 
other,  and  that  their  hostility  on  this  point  cannot  be  softened  by  the 
advocates  of  accommodation.  On  this  account  no  alarm  need  be  felt 
by  the  heliever,  "for  there  is  no  counsel  against  the  Lord;"  and  the 
progress  of  true  philosophy  will  ever,  in  the  result,  add  evidence  to  the 
truth  of  revelation.  On  the  antiquity  of  the  human  race  geology  has 
been  compelled  already  to  give  its  testimony  to  the  accuracy  of  Moses, 
and  the  time  is  probably  not  far  distant  when  a  similar  testimony  will 
be  educed  from  it,  as  to  the  antiquity  of  the  globe. 

In  what  it  now  opposes  that  authority,  it  may  serve  to  rebuke  the 
dogmatism  with  which  it  has  disputed  the  Scriptures,  to  observe,  that, 
strictly  speaking,  the  science  itself  is  not  yet  half  a  century  old,  and  is 
conversant,  not  with  the  surface  of  the  earth  only,  but  with  its  interior 
strata,  which  have  been  as  yet  but  partially  examined.  It  is  therefore 
too  early  to  theorize  with  so  much  confidence  ;  and  the  eager  manner 
in  which  its  hasty  speculations  have  been  taken  up  against  the  Mosaic 
account,  can  only  remind  thinking  men  of  the  equally  eager  manner  in 
which  the  chronologies  of  China  and  Hindostan,  and  the  supposed 
zodiacs  of  Egyptian  temples  were  once  caught  at,  for  the  same  reason, 
and  we  may  justly  fear  from  the  same  motives.  It  will,  indeed,  be  time 
enough  to  enter  into  a  formal  defence  of  Moses,  when  geologists  agree 
among  themselves  on  leading  principles.  Cuvier  gives  rather  an 
amusing  account  of  the  odd  and  contradictory  speculations  of  his 
scientific  brethren  ;  (Tlieory,  by  Jamieson,  page  41-47  ;)  all  of  which 
he  of  course  condemns,  and  fancies  himself,  as  they  all  fancied  them- 
selves before  him,  a  successful  theorist.  The  vehemence  with  which 
the  two  great  rival  geological  sects,  the  Neptunian  and  Plutonian,  have 
disputed,  to  a  degree  almost  unprecedented  in  the  modern  age  of  philo- 

poets,  the  elements  of  all  things ;  a  notion  which  those  who  wish  to  reconcile 
the  account  of  Genesis  with  the  modern  geology  have  been  willing  to  concede  to 
them,  on  the  ground  that  Moses  has  said  that  the  earth  was  "  without  form  and 
void."  But  they  have  not  considered  that  it  was  "  the  earth,"  not  a  liquid  mass, 
which  is  thus  characterized ;  circumfused  with  water,  it  is  true,  but  not  mingled 
with  it.  The  LXX  render  the  phrase  TB\  inn,  tohu  vabohu,  aoparot,  nai  axaraaKcv 
as-of,  invisible  and  unfurnished, — invisible  both  because  of  the  darkness,  and  the 
water  which  covered  it,  and  unfurnished,  because  destitute  as  yet  of  vegetables 
and  animals.  "  It  is  wonderful,"  says  Rosenmuller,  "  how  so  many  interpreters 
could  imagine  that  a  chaos  was  described  in  the  words  inai  inn,  tohu  vabohu. 
This  notion  unquestionably  took  its  origin  from  the  fictions  of  the  Greek  and 
Latin  poets,  which  were  transferred,  by  those  interpreters,  to  Moses."  Those 
fictions  ground  themselves,  we  may  add,  upon  traditions  received  from  the  earli- 
est times ;  but  the  additions  of  poetic  fancy  are  not  to  be  applied  to  interpret  the 
Scriptures. 


252  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

sophy,  adds  but  .little  authority  to  the  decisions  of  either,  inasmuch  as 
the  contest  is  grounded  upon  an  assumed  knowledge  of  facts,  and  there- 
fore  shows  that  the  facts  themselves  are  but  indistinctly  apprehended  in 
their  relations  to  each  other,  and  that  the  collection  of  phenomena  on 
both  sides  still  need  to  be  arranged  and  systematized,  under  the  guidance 
of  some  calm,  and  modest,  and  master  mind.  (5) 

In  all  these  speculations  it  is  observable,  that  it  is  assumed  at  once 
that  philosophy  and  the  Mosaic  account  are  incompatible,  and  generally 
without  any  pains  having  been  taken  to  understand  that  account  itself. 
Yet  as  that  account  professes  to  be  from  one  who  was  both  the  author 
and  the  witness  of  the  phenomena  in  question,  it  might  have  been  sup- 
posed that  the  aid  of  testimony  would  have  been  gladly  brought  to 
induction.  An  able  work  has  been  recently  published  on  this  subject 
by  Mr.  Granville  Penn,  who  has  at  once  reproved  the  bold  philosophy 
which  excludes  the  operation  of  God,  and  employs  itself  only  among 
second  causes  ;  and  has  unfolded  the  Mosaic  account  of  two  great  revo- 
lutions of  the  earth,  one  of  which  took  place  when  "the  waters  were 
gathered  into  one  place,"  and  the  other  at  the  deluge,  "when  the 
fountains  of  the  great  deep  were  broken  up,"  (6)  and  has  applied  them 
to  account  for  those  phenomena  which  have  been  made  to  require  a 
theory  not  to  be  reconciled  with  the  sacred  historian.  (7) 

Voltaire  objected  to  the  philosophy  of  the  Mosaic  account,  that  it  has 
represented  a  solid  firmament  to  have  been  formed,  in  which  the  stars 
are  fixed  as  in  a  wall  of  adamant.     This  objection  was  made  in  igno- 

(5)  Mons.  L.  A.  Necker  de  Saussure,  (Voyage  en  Ecosse,)  speaking  of  the 
disputes  between  the  Wernerians  and  Huttonians,  says,  "The  former  availed 
themselves  of  the  ascendancy  which  a  more  minute  study  of  minerals  afforded, 
to  depreciate"  the  observations  of  their  adversaries.  They  denied  the  existence 
of  facts  which  the  latter  had  discovered,  or  they  tried  to  sink  their  importance 
Hence  it  happened  that  phenomena,  important  to  the  natural  history  of  the  earth, 
have  never  been  made  known  and  appreciated  as  they  ought  to  have  been,  by 
geologists  most  capable  of  estimating  their  consequences." 

(6)  See  note  A  at  the  end  of  the  chapter. 

(7)  A  scientific  journal  of  great  reputation,  edited  at  the  Royal  Institution,  has 
made  an  honourable  disclaimer  of  those  theories  which  contradict  the  Scriptures, 
and  speaks  in  commendation  of  the  work  of  Mr.  Penn  :  "  We  are  not  inclined, 
even  if  we  had  time,  to  enter  into  the  comparative  merits  of  the  fire  and  water 
fancies,  miscalled  theories;  but  we  have  certain  old-fashioned  prejudices,  which, 
in  these  enlightened  days  of  skepticism  and  infidelity,  will  no  doubt  be  set  down 

.  as  mightily  ridiculous,  but  which,  nevertheless,  induce  us  to  pause  before  we 
acquiesce  either  in  the  one  or  the  other.  There  is  another  mode  of  accounting 
for  the  present  state  of  the  earth's  structure,  on  principles  at  least  as  rational,  in 
a  philosophical  light,  as  either  the  Plutonian  or  Neptunian ;  and  inasmuch  as  it 
is  more  consistent  with,  and  founded  on,  sacred  history,  incomparably  superior. 
(See  Mr.  Grahville  Penn's  Comparative  Estimate  of  the  Mineral  and  Mosaical 
Geologies") 


FIRST.J  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  253 

ranee  of  the  import  of  the  original  word  rendered  firmamentum  by  the 
Vulgate,  and  which  signifies  an  expanse,  referring  evidently  to  the 
atmosphere.  The  Septuagint  seems  to  have  rendered  jrrn,  by  sepsw/xa, 
which  signifies  a  firm  support,  with  reference  to  the  office  of  the  atmos- 
phere, to  keep  up,  as  effectually  as  by  some  solid  support,  the  waters 
contained  in  the  clouds.  The  account  of  Moses  is  philosophically  true  ; 
the  expanded  or  diffused  atmosphere  "divides  the  waters  from  the 
waters,"  the  waters  in  the  clouds  from  the  waters  of  the  earth  and 
sea  ;  and  the  objection  only  shows  ignorance  of  the  original  language, 
or  inattention  to  it. 

It  is  more  difficult  to  explain  that  part  of  the  Mosaic  relation  which 
represents  light  as  created  on  the  first  day,  and  the  sun  not  until  the 
fourth  ;  it  would  be  wearisome  to  give  the  various  solutions  which  have 
been  offered.  One  of  the  most  recent,  that  which  supposes  the  creation 
of  latent  heat  and  light  to  be  spoken  of,  cannot  certainly  be  maintained ; 
for  the  light  which  on  the  first  day  obeyed  the  sublime  fiat,  was  not 
latent,  but  in  a  state  of  excitement,  and  collected  itself  into  a  body  suffi- 
cient to  produce  the  distinction  between  day  and  night,  which,  had  it 
been  either  in  a  latent  state,  or  every  where  diffused  in  an  excited  form, 
could  not  have  been  effected.  The  difficulty,  however,  so  far  from 
discrediting  the  Mosaic  account,  affords  it  a  striking  confirmation.  Had 
it  been  compiled  under  popular  notions,  it  never  could  have  entered  the 
mind  of  man,  drawing  all  his  philosophy  from  the  optical  appearances 
of  nature  only,  that  light,  sufficient  to  form  the  distinction  between  day 
and  night,  should  have  been  created  independent  of  the  sun ;  and  the 
conclusion  therefore  is,  that  the  account  was  received  either  from  inspi- 
ration, or  from  a  tradition  pure  from  its  original  fountain,  and  which 
had  flowed  on  to  the  time  of  Moses,  unmixed  with  popular  corruptions. 

"  Sir  William  Herschel,"  says  Mr.  Granville  Penn,  "  has  discovered 
that  the  body  of  the  sun  is  an  opaque  substance ;  and  that  the  splendid 
matter  which  dispenses  to  the  world  light  and  heat,  is  a  luminous  atmos. 
phere,  (Phil.  Trans,  for  1795,  p.  46  ;  and  for  1801,  p.  265,)  attached 
to  its  surface,  figuratively,  though  not  physically,  as  flame  is  attached  to 
the  wick  of  a  lamp  or  a  torch.  So  that  the  creation  of  the  sun,  as  a 
part  of  '  the  host,  of  heaven,7  does  not  necessarily  imply  the  creation  of 
light ;  and,  conversely,  the  creation  of  light  does  not  necessarily  imply 
the  creation  of  the  body  of  the  sun.  In  the  first  creation  of  '  the  Ixeaven 
and  the  earthy  therefore,  not  the  planetary  orbs  only,  but  the  solar  orb 
itself,  was  created  in  darkness ;  awaiting  the  light,  which,  by  one  simple 
Divine  operation,  was  to  be  communicated  at  once  to  all.  When  then 
the  almighty  Word,  in  commanding  light,  commanded  the  first  illumina- 
tion of  the  solar  atmosphere,  its  new  light  was  immediately  caught,  and  re- 
flected throughout  space,  by  all  the  members  of  the  planetary  system.  And 
well  may  we  imagine,  that,  in  that  first,  sudden,  and  magnificent  illumi- 


254  THEOLOGICAL     INSTITUTES.  [PART 

nation  of  the  universe,  '  the  morning  stars  sang  together,  and  the  sons  of 
God  shouted  for  joy,' "  Job  xxxviii,  7. 

But  if  the  discovery  of  Herschel  be  real,  the  passage  just  quoted 
supposes  the  solar  orb  to  have  been  invested  with  its  luminous  atmos- 
phere on  the  first  day,  and  the  difficulty  in  question  still  remains 
untouched,  though  it  admirably  explains  how  "  the  heavens,"  that  is, 
our  solar  system,  should  be  created  by  one  act,  and  yet  that  it  should 
require  a  second  fiat  to  invest  them  with  light.  Another  way  of  meet, 
ing  the  difficulty  is,  that  the  lights  which  are  said  to  have  been  made  on 
the  fourth  day,  were  not  on  that  day  actually  created,  but  determined  to 
certain  uses.  Thus  Rosenmuller  :  "  If  any  one  who  is  conversant  with 
the  genius  of  the  Hebrew,  and  free  from  any  previous  bias  of  his  judg- 
ment, will  read  the  words  of  this  article  in  their  natural  connection,  he 
will  immediately  perceive  that  they  import  the  direction  or  determination 
of  the  Iieavenly  bodies  to  crtain  uses  which  they  were  to  supply  to  the  earth. 
The  words  mND  TP.  are  not  to  be  separated  from  the  rest,  or  to  be  ren 
deredf  ant  luminar.a, — Jet  there  he  lights ;  that  is,  let  lights  he  made; 
but  rather,  let  lights  he,  that  is,  serve  in  the  expanse  of  heaven — inserviant 
in  expanso  c&lorum — for  distinguishing  between  day  and  night :  and  let 
them  be,  or  serve,  for  signs,  dfc.  For  we  are  to  observe,  that  the  verb 
rrn  to  be,  in  construction  with  the  prefix  S  for,  is  generally  employed 
to  express  the  direction  or  determination  of  a  thing  to  an  end ;  and  not 
the  production  of  the  thing ;  e.  g.  Num.  x,  31 ;  Zech.  viii,  19,  and  in 
many  other  places." 

To  this  there  is  an  obvious  objection,  that  it  does  not  assign  any  vx>rk, 
properly  speaking,  to  the  fourth  day  ;  and  how,  when  neither  being  was 
on  that  day  given  to  them,  nor  any  change  effected  in  their  qualities  or 
relations,  the  lights  could  be  determined  to  certain  uses  except  by  giving 
information  of  their  uses  to  men,  cannot  be  conceived  ;  and  as  yet  man 
was  uot  created.  Mr.  Penn  indeed  supposes  that  the  heavenly  bodies 
had  been  hid  from  the  earth  till  the  fourth  day  by  vapours ;  that  then 
they  were  for  the  first  time  dispelled  ;  and,  as  he  eloquently  says,  "  the 
amazing  calendar  of  the  heavens,  ordained  to  serve  for  the  notation  of 
time  in  all  human  concerns,  civil  and  religious,  so  long  as  time  and 
man  should  continue,  was  therefore  to  be  now  first  unfolded  to  the 
earth,  with  all  the  visible  indices  of  time  by  which  its  measures  were 
thereafter  to  be  marked,  distinguished,  and  computed  ;  and  the  splendid 
cause,  which  had  hitherto  issued  its  effect  of  light  through  an  interposed 
medium,  was  to  dispense  that  light  to  the  earth  immediately,  in  the  full 
manifestation  of  its  effulgence." 

The  notion,  that  the  earth  was  from  the  first  to  the  fourth  day  enveloped 
with  vapour,  so  that,  as  in  a  fog,  the  distinction  of  day  and  night  was 
manifest,  though  the  celestial  orbs  were  not  visible,  is  however  assumed, 
and  does  not  appear  quite  philosophical     and  though  the  dispersion  of 


FIRST.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  255 

these  vapours  from  the  atmosphere  assigns  a  work  to  the  fourth  day,  it 
scarcely  appears  to  be  of  sufficient  importance  to  accord  with  the  language 
of  the  history.  It  would  be  better  to  suppose  with  others,  that  on  the 
fourth  day  the  annual  motion  of  the  earth  commenced,  which  till  then 
merely  turned  upon  its  axis,  and  with  it  the  annual  motion  of  the  moon 
and  planets  in  their  orbits, — that  wonderfully  rapid  and  yet  regular  flight 
of  the  heavenly  bodies  which  so  awfully  displays  the  power  of  the  great 
Artificer  in  communicating,  and  constantly  feeding,  the  mighty  impulse, 
and  which  is  so  essential  to  the  measurement  of  time,  that  without  it  the 
"  lights"  could  not  be,  or  serve,  "  for  signs  and  for  seasons,"  and  "  for" 
solemn  "  days,"  religious  festivals,  and  the  commemoration  of  important 
events,  and  "  for  years."  A  sublime  work  is  thus  assigned  to  the  fourth 
day,  and  the  difficulty  seems  mainly  to  be  removed :  but  whether  some 
violence  is  not  done  to  the  letter  of  the  account,  may  still  be  doubted ; 
and  the  difficulty  which  proves,  as  we  have  seen,  if  admitted  in  its  full 
force,  more  for  the  Mosaic  relation  than  against  it,  had  better  be  retained 
than  one  iota  of  the  strict  grammatical  and  contextual  meaning  of  Scrip- 
ture be  suffered  to  pass  away. 

Several  objections  have  been  made  at  different  times  to  the  Mosaic 
account  of  the  deluge.  The  fact  however  is  not  only  preserved  in  the 
traditions  of  all  nations,  as  we  have  already  seen ;  but  after  all  the  phi- 
losophical  arguments  which  were  formerly  urged  against  it,  philosophy 
has  at  length  acknowledged  that  the  present  surface  of  the  earth  must 
have  been  submerged  under  water.  "Not  only,"  says  Kirwan,  "in 
every  region  of  Europe,  but  also  of  both  the  old  and  new  continents, 
immense  quantities  of  marine  shells,  either  dispersed  or  collected,  have 
been  discovered."  This  and  several  other  facts  seem  to  prove,  that  at 
least  a  great  part  of  the  present  earth  was,  before  the  last  general  con- 
vulsion to  which  it  has  been  subjected,  the  bed  of  an  ocean  which,  at 
that  time,  was  withdrawn  from  it.  Other  facts  seem  also  to  prove  with 
sufficient  evidence,  that  this  was  not  a  gradual  retirement  of  the  waters 
which  once  covered  the  parts  now  inhabited  by  men  ;  but  a  violent  one, 
such  as  may  be  supposed  from  the  brief,  but  emphatic  relation  of  Moses. 
The  violent  action  of  water  has  left  its  traces  in  various  undisputed  phe- 
nomeniu  "  Stratified  mountains  of  various  heights  exist  in  different 
pans  of  Europe,  and  of  both  continents,  in  and  between  wbose  strata 
various  substances  of  marine,  and  some  vegetables  of  terrestrial  origin 
repose  either  in  their  natural  state,  or  petrified."  (Kirwan's  Geological 
Essays.)  "To  overspread  the  plains  of  the  arctic  circle  with  the  shells 
of  Indian  seas,  and  with  the  bodies  of  elephants  and  rhinoceri,  surrounded 
by  masses  of  submarine  vegetation ;  to  accumulate  on  a  single  spot,  as 
at  La  Holca,  in  promiscuous  confusion,  the  marine  productions  of  tbe  four 
quarters  of* ;  he  globe;  what  conceivable  instrument  would  be  efficacious 
but  the  rush  of  mighty  waters?"  (Gisborne's  "  Testimony  of  .Vatural 


256  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

Theology"  &c.)  These  facts,  about  which,  there  is  no  dispute,  and 
which  are  acknowledged  by  the  advocates  of  each  of  the  prevailing 
geological  theories,  give  a  sufficient  attestation  to  the  deluge  of  Noah, 
in  which  "  the  fountains  of  the  great  deep  were  broken  up,"  and  from 
which  precisely  such  phenomena  might  be  expected  to  follow.  To  this 
may  be  added,  though  less  decisive  in  proof,  yet  certainly  strong  as 
presumptive  evidence,  that  the  very  aspect  of  the  earth's  surface  exhibits 
interesting  marks  both  of  the  violent  action,  and  the  rapid  subsidence 
of  waters ;  as  well  as  affords  a  most  interesting  instance  of  the  Divine 
goodness  in  converting  what  was  ruin  itself,  into  utility,  and  beauty. 
The  great  frame  work  of  the  varied  surface  of  the  habitable  earth  was 
probably  laid  by  a  more  powerful  agency  than  that  of  water ;  either 
when  on  the  third  day  the  waters  under  the  heavens  were  gathered 
into  one  place,  and  the  crust  of  the  primitive  earth  was  broken  down  to 
receive  them,  so  that  "  the  dry  land  might  appear ;"  or  by  those  mighty 
convulsions  which  appear  to  have  accompanied  the  general  deluge  ;  but 
the  rounding,  so  to  speak,  of  what  was  rugged,  where  the  substance 
was  yielding,  and  the  graceful  undulations  of  hill  and  dale  which  so 
frequently  present  themselves,  were  probably  effected  by  the  retiring 
waters.  The  flood  has  passed  away ;  but  the  soils  which  it  deposited 
remain  ;  and  the  valleys  through  which  its  last  streams  were  drawn  off 
to  the  ocean,  with  many  an  eddy  and  sinuous  course,  still  exist,  exhibit, 
ing  visible  proofs  of  its  agency,  and  impressed  with  forms  so  adapted  to 
the  benefit  of  man,  and  often  so  gratifying  to  the  finest  taste,  that  when 
the  flood  "  turned,"  it  may  be  said  to  have  "  left  a  blessing  behind  it." 

Thus  the  objections  once  made  to  the  fact  of  a  general  deluge  have 
been  greatly  weakened  by  the  progress  of  philosophical  knowledge  ;  and 
may  indeed  be  regarded  as  nearly  given  up,  like  the  former  notion  of 
the  high  antiquity  of  the  race  of  men,  founded  on  the  Chinese  and 
Egyptian  chronologies  and  pretended  histories.  Philosophy  has  even  at 
last  found  out  that  there  is  sufficient  water  in  the  ocean,  if  called  forth, 
to  overflow  the  highest  mountains  to  the  height  given  by  Moses,  a  con- 
clusion which  it  once  stoutly  denied.  Keill  formerly  computed  that 
twenty-eight  oceans  would  be  necessary  for  that  purpose,  but  we  are  now 
informed  "  that  a  farther  progress  in  mathematical  and  physical  know- 
ledge has  shown  the  different  seas  and  oceans  to  contain  at  least  forty- 
eight  times  more  water  than  they  were  then  supposed  to  do ;  and  that 
the  mere  raising  of  the  temperature  of  the  whole  body  of  the  ocean  to 
a  degree  no  greater  than  marine  animals  live  in,  in  the  shallow  seas 
between  the  tropics,  would  so  expand  it  as  more  than  to  produce  the 
height  above  the  mountains  stated  in  the  Mosaic  account."  As  to  the 
deluge  of  Noah,  therefore,  infidelity  has  almost  entirely  lost  the  aid  of 
philosophy  in  framing  objections  to  the  Scriptures. 

The  dimensions  of  the  ark,  and  the  preservation  of  the  animals  con- 


FIRST.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  257 

tained  in  it,  are  however  still  the  subject  of  occasional  ridicule,  though 
with  little  foundation.  Dr.  Hales  proves  the  ark  to  have  been  of  the 
burthen  of  42,413  tons,  and  asks,  "  Can  we  doubt  of  its  being  sufficient 
to  contain  eight  persons,  and  about  two  hundred,  or  two  hundred  and 
fifty  pair  of  four-footed  animals,  (a  number  to  which,  according  to  M. 
Buffon,  all  the  various  distinct  species  may  be  reduced,)  together  with 
all  the  subsistence  necessary  for  a  twelvemonth,  with  the  fowls  of  the 
air,  and  such  reptiles  and  insects  as  cannot  live  under  water?  All 
these  various  animals  were  controlled  by  the  power  of  God,  whose 
special  agency  is  supposed  in  the  whole  transaction,  and  '  the  lion  was 
made  to  he  down  with  the  kid.' " 

Whether  Noah  was  commanded  to  bring  with  him,  into  the  ark,,  a. 
pair  of  all  living  creatures,  zoologically  and  numerically  considered,  has 
been  doubted ;  and  as  during  the  long  period  between  the  creation  and 
the  flood,  animals  must  have  spread  themselves  over  a  great  part  of  the 
antediluvian  earth,  and  certain  animals  would,  as  now,  probably  become 
indigenous  to  certain  climates,  the  pairs  saved  must  in  such  cases  have 
travelled  from  immense  distances.  Of  such  marches  no  intimation  is 
given  in  the  history  ;  and  this  seems  to  render  it  probable  that  the  animals 
which  Noah  was  "  to  bring  with  him"  into  the  ark,  were  the  animals, 
clean  and  unclean,  of  the  country  in  which  he  dwelt,  and  which,  from 
the  evident  capacity  of  the  ark,  must  have  been  in  great  variety  and 
number.  The  terms  used,  it  is  true,  are  universal ;  and  it  is  satisfac- 
tory to  know  that  if  the  largest  sense  of  them  be  taken,  there  was  ample 
accommodation  in  the  ark.  Nevertheless,  universal  terms  in  Scripture 
are  not  always  to  be  taken  mathematically  ;  and  in  the  vision  of  Peter, 
the  phrase  •sravTot  to,  <rs<rpa#o<$a  ttjs  yr& — "  all  the  four-footed  beasts  oj 
the  earth,"  must  be  understood  of  " varii  generis  quadrupedes"  as 
Schleusner  paraphrases  it.  In  this  case  we  may  easily  account  for  the 
exuviae  of  animals,  whose  species  no  longer  exist,  and  which  have  been 
discovered  in  various  places.  The  number  of  such  extinct  species  has 
probably  been  greatly  overrated  by  Cuvier ;  but  of  the  fact  to  a  con. 
siderahle  extent,  there  can  be  no  doubt.  It  is  also  to  be  remarked,  that 
we  are  not  obliged  to  go  to  the  limited  interpretation  of  the  command  to 
Noah  respecting  the  animals  to  be  preserved  in  the  ark,  in  order  to 
account  for  this  fact ;  for  without  adopting  the  totally  unscriptural 
theory  of  a  former  world ;  or  of  more  general  revolutions  of  the  earth 
than  the  Scriptures  state,  (partial  ones  affecting  large  districts  may  have 
taken  place,)  we  know  of  no  principle  in  the  word  of  God  which  should 
lead  us  to  conclude,  that  all  the  animals  which  God  at  first  created 
should  be  preserved  to  the  end  of  time.  In  many  countries  whole  species 
of  wild  animals  have  perished  by  the  progress  of  cultivation,  a  process 
which  must  ultimately  produce  the  utter  extinction  of  the  same  species 
every  where.     The  offices  which  many  other  creatures  were  designed  to 

Vol.  1.  17 


258  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

fulfil  in  the  economy  of  nature,  may  have  terminated  with  the  new  cir. 
cumstances  in  which  the  parts  they  have  chiefly  inhabited  are  placed. 
So  it  might  be  before  the  flood,  and  in  many  places  since.  Thus  then 
the  exuviae  of  extinct  species  may  be  expected  to  present  themselves. 
But  in  addition  to  this,  if  we  suppose  that  during  the  antediluvian  period, 
animals  of  various  kinds  had  located  themselves  in  different  portions  of 
the  ocean,  and  in  different  climates  of  the  primitive  earth  ;  and  that,  of 
the  terrestrial  animals  become  indigenous  to  parts.of  the  earth  distant  from 
Noah  and  the  inhabited  world,  some  species  were  not  received  into  the 
ark,  their  remains  will  also  occasionally  be  discovered,  and  present  the 
proof  of  modes  of  animated  existence  not  now  to  be  paralleled.  Among 
fossil  remains  it  has  been  made  a  matter  of  surprise  that  no  human 
skeletons,  or  but  few,  and  those  in  recent  formations,  have  been  found. 
The  reason  however  is  not  difficult  to  furnish.  If  we  admit  that  the 
present  continents  were  the  bottom  of  the  antediluvian  ocean,  and  that 
the  ocean  has  changed  its  place  ;  then  the  former  habitations  of  men  are 
submerged,  and  their  remains  are  beyond  human  reach.  If  any  part 
of  the  antediluvian  earth  still  remains,  it  is  probably  that  region  to  which 
Noah  and  his  family  were  restored  from  the  ark  ;  and  in  those  countries, 
geology  has  not  commenced  its  inferior  researches,  and  such  fossil 
remains  may  there  exist.  There  is  this  difference  between  the  human 
race  and  the  inferior  animals,  that  while  the  latter  for  near  two  thousand 
years  were  roaming  over  the  wide  earth,  the  former  confined  themselves 
to  one  region ;  for  those  extravagant  calculations  as  to  the  population 
of  the  earth  at  the  time  of  the  flood,  which  some  have  made,  cannot  be 
maintained  on  the  authority  of  Scripture,  on  which  they  professedly 
rest ;  since  it  is  certain  that  they  represent  Noah  as  a  preacher  of 
righteousness  to  the  whole  existing  "  world"  of  men,  during  the  time  the 
ark  was  preparing,  one  hundred  and  twenty  years.  The  human  race 
must  therefore  have  lived,  however  populous,  in  the  same  region,  and 
been  either  in  personal  communication  with  him,  or  within  reach  of  the 
distinct  report  of  his  doctrines,  and  of  that  great  and  public  act  of  his 
faith,  the  preparing  of  the  ark,  "  by  the  which  he  condemned  the  world, 
and  became  heir  of  the  righteousness  which  is  by  faith."  Even  Cuvier 
gives  it  as  a  reason  why  human  skeletons  are  not  found  in  a  fossil  state, 
*  that  the  place  which  men  then  inhabited  may  have  sunk  into  the 
abyss,  and  that  the  bones  of  that  destroyed  race  may  yet  remain  buried 
under  the  bottom  of  some  actual  seas." 


Such  are  the  leading  evidences  of  the  truth  of  the  Holy  Scriptures, 
and  of  the  religious  system  which  they  unfold,  from  the  first  promise 
made  to  the  first  fallen  man,  to  its  perfected  exhibition  in  the  New 
Testament.     The  Christian   will  review   these  solid   and   immovable 


FIRST. J  THEOLOGICAL   INSTITUTES.  259 

foundations  of  ins  faith  with  unutterable  joy.  They  leave  none  of  his 
moral  iuterests  unprovided  for  in  time ;  they  set  before  him  a  certain 
and  a  felicitous  immortality.  The  skeptic  and  the  infidel  may  be  en- 
treated, by  every  compassionate  feeling,  to  a  more  serious  consideration 
of  the  evidences  of  this  Divine  system,  and  the  difficulties  and  hopeless- 
ness of  their  own ;  and  they  ought  to  be  reminded,  in  the  words  of  a 
modern  writer,  "  If  Christianity  be  true,  it  is  tremendously  true."  Let 
them  turn  to  an  insulted,  but  yet  a  merciful  Saviour,  who  even  now 
prays  for  his  blasphemers,  in  the  words  he  once  addressed  to  Heaven  in 
behalf  of  his  murderers,  Father,  forgive  them  ;  for  they  know 

NOT  WHAT  THEY   DO  ! 


Note  A. — Page  252. 

From  the  work  referred  to  in  the  text,  the  following  extracts  will  be  read  with 
interest. 

Mr.  Penn  first  controverts  the  notion  of  those  geologists  who  think  that  the 
earth  was  originally  a  fluid  mass  ;  and  as  they  plead  the  authority  of  Sir  I.  New- 
ton, who  is  said  to  have  concluded  from  its  figure,  (an  obtuse  spheroid,)  that  it 
was  originally  a  yielding  mass,  Mr.  Penn  shows  that  this  was  only  put  hypothe- 
tically  by  him  ;  and  that  he  has  laid  it  down  expressly  as  his  belief,  not  that  there 
was  first  a  chaotic  ocean,  and  then  a  gradual  process  of  first  formations,  but  that 
"  God  at  the  beginning  formed  all  material  things  of  such  figures  and  properties 
as  most  conduced  to  the  end  for  which  he  formed  them  ;"  and  that  he  judged  it 
to  be  unphilosophical  to  ascribe  them  to  any  mediate  or  secondary  cause,  such 
as  laws  of  nature  operating  in  a  chaos.  Mr.  Penn  then  proceeds  to  show,  that, 
though  what  geologists  call  first  formations  may  have  the  appearance  of  having 
been  produced  by  a  process,  say  of  crystalization,  or  any  other,  that  is  no  proof 
thit  they  were  not  formed  by  the  immediate  act  of  God,  as  we  are  taught  in  the 
■  Scriptures  ;  and  he  confirms  this  by  examples  from  the  first  formations  in  the 
animal  and  vegetable  kingdoms,  and  contends  that  the  first  formations  of  the 
mineral  kingdom  must  come  under  the  same  rule.  "  If  a  bone  of  the  first  created 
man  now  remained,  and  were  mingled  with  other  bones  pertaining  to  a  generated 
race ;  and  if  it  were  to  be  submitted  to  the  inspection  and  examination  of  an 
anatomist,  what  opinion  and  judgment  would  its  sensible  phenomena  suggest,  re- 
specting the  mode  of  its  first  formation,  and  what  would  be  his  conclusion  ?  If 
he  were  unapprized  of  its  true  origin,  his  mind  would  see  nothing  in  its  sensible 
phenomena  but  the  laws  of  ossification  ;  just  as  the  mineral  geology  '  sees  nothing 
in  the  details  of  the  formation  of  minerals,  but  precipitations,  crystalizations, 
and  dissolutions.'1  (D' Aubuisson,  i,  pp.  326-7.)  He  would  therefore  naturally 
pronounce,  of  this  bone,  as  of  all  the  other  bones,  that  its  'fibres  were  originally 
soft?  until,  in  the  shelter  of  the  maternal  womb,  it  acquired  '  the  hardness  of  a 
cartilage,  and  then  of  bone,1  that  this  effect  '  was  not  produced  at  once,  or  in  a 
very  sftort  time,''  but  '  by  degrees;''  that,  after  birth,  it  increased  in  hardness  ■  by 
the  continual  addition  of  ossifying  matter,  until  it  ceased  to  grow  at  all.1 

"  Physically  true  as  this  reasoning  would  appear,  it  would  nevertheless  be  mo. 
rally  and  really  false.  Why  would  it  be  false  ?  Because  it  concluded,  from  mer: 
sensible  phenomena,  to  the  certainty  of  a  fact  which  could  not  be  established  by 
the  evidence  of  sensible  phenomena  alone  ;  namely,  the  mode  of  the  first  forma 
tion  of  the  substance  of  created  bone. 


260  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

"  Let  us  proceed  from  animal  to  vegetable  matter ;  and  let  us  consider  the  first 
created  tree,  under  which  the  created  man  first  reposed,  and  from  which  he  ga- 
thered his  first  fruit.  That  tree  must  have  had  a  stem,  or  trunk,  through  which 
the  juices  were  conveyed  from  the  root  to  the  fruit,  and  by  which  it  was  able  to 
sustain  the  branches  upon  which  the  fruit  grew. 

"  If  a  portion  of  this  created  tree  now  remained,  and  if  a  section  of  its  wood 
were  to  be  mingled  with  other  sections  of  propagated  trees,  and  submitted  to  the 
inspection  and  examination  of  a  naturalist ;  what  opinion  and  judgment  would 
its  sensible  phenomena  suggest  to  him,  respecting  the  mode  of  its  first  formation  ; 
and  what  would  be  his  conclusion?  If  he  were  unapprized  of  its  true  origin, 
his  mind  would  see  nothing  in  its  sensible  phenomena,  but  the  laws  of  lignifi- 
cation  ;  just  as  the  mineral  geologist  '  sees  nothing  in  the  details  of  the  formations 
of  primitive  rock,  but  precipitations,  crystalizations,  and  dissolutions.1  He  would 
therefore  naturally  pronounce  of  it  as  of  all  the  other  sections  of  wood  :  that  its 
'fibres,'  when  they  first  issued  from  the  seed,  '  were  soft  and  herbaceous;'1  that 
they  '  did  not  suddenly  pass  to  the  hardness  of  perfect  wood,'  but,  '  after  many 
years;'  that  the  hardness  of  their  folds,  '  which  indicate  the  growth  of  each  year,' 
was  therefore  effected  only  '  by  degrees  ;'  and  that,  '  since  nature  does  nothing 
but  by  a  progressive  course,  it  is  not  surprising  that  its  substance  acquired  its 
hardness  only  by  little  and  little.' 

"  Physically  true  as  the  naturalist  would  here  appear  to  reason  ;  yet  his  rea- 
Boning,  like  that  of  the  anatomist,  would  be  morally  and  really  false.  And  why 
would  it  be  false  ?  For  the  same  reason ;  because  he  concluded  from  mere  sen- 
sible phenomena,  to  the  certainty  of  a  fact  which  could  not  be  established  by  the 
evidence  of  sensible  phenomena  alone  ;  namely,  the  mode  of  the  first  formation 
of  the  substance  of  created  wood. 

"  There  only  now  remains  to  be  considered,  the  third,  or  mineral  kingdom  of 
this  terrestrial  system  ;  and  it  appears  probable,  to  reason  and  philosophy,  by 
prima  facie  evidence,  thatthe  principle  determining  the  mode  of  first  formations, 
in  two  parts  of  this  three-fold  division  of  matter,  must  have  equal  authority  in 
this  third  part.  And  indeed,  after  the  closest  investigation  of  the  subject,  we  can 
discover  no  ground  whatever  for  supposing  that  this  third  part  is  exempted  front 
the  authority  of  that  common  principle  ;  or  that  physics  are  a  whit  more  compe- 
tent to  dogmatize  concerning  the  mode  of  first  formations,  from  the  evidence  of 
phenomena  alone,  in  the  mineral  kingdom,  than  they  have  been  found  to  be  in 
the  animal  or  vegetable ;  or  to  affirm,  from  the  indications  of  the  former,  that  the 
mode  of  its  first  formations  was  more  gradual  and  tardy  than  those  of  the  other 
two. 

"  Let  us  try  this  point,  by  proceeding  with  our  comparison ;  and  let  us  con- 
sider the  first  created  rock,  as  we  have  considered  the  first  created  bone  and 
wood;  and  let  us  ask,  what  is  rock,  in  its  nature  and  composition? 

"To  this  question,  mineralogy  replies:  'By  the  word  rock,  we  mean  every 
mineral  mass  of  such  bulk  as  to  be  regarded  an  essential  part  of  the  structure  of 
the  globe.  (D'  Aubuisson,  i,  p.  272.)  We  understand  by  the  word  mineral,  a  natural 
body,  inorganic,  solid,  homogeneous,  that  is,  composed  of  integrant  molecules 
of  the  same  substance.  (D' Aubuisson,  i,  p.  271.)  We  may,  perhaps,  pronounce  that 
a  mass  is  essential,  when  its  displacement  would  occasion  the  downfall  of  other 
masses  which  are  placed  upon  it.  {D' Aubuisson,  i,  p.  272.)  Such  are  those  lofty 
and  ancient  mountains,  the  first  and  most  solid  bones,  as  it  were,  of  this  globe, — les 
■premiers,  les  plus  solides  ossemens, — which  have  merited  the  name  of  primitive, 
because,  scorning  all  support  and  all  foreign  mixture,  they  repose  always  upon 
bases  similar  to  themselves,  and  comprise  within  their  substance  no  matter  but 


FIRST.]  TIIEOLOCJICAL    INSTITUTES  261 

of  the  same  nature.  (Saussure,  Voyages  des  Alps,  Disc.  Prel.  pp.  6,  7.)  These 
are  the  primordial  mountains;  which  traverse  our  continents  in  various  direc- 
tions, rising  above  the  clouds,  separating  the  basins  of  rivers  one  from  another  ; 
serving,  by  means  of  their  eternal  snows,  as  reservoirs  for  feeding  the  springs, 
and  forming  in  some  measure  the  skeleton,  or,  as  it  were,  the  rough  frame  work 
of  the  earth.  (Cuvier,  sec.  7,  p.  39.)  These  primitive  masses  are  stamped  with 
the  character  of  a  formation  altogether  crystaline,  as  if  they  were  really  the  pro- 
duct of  a  tranquil  precipitation.'  (D'Aubuisson,  ii,  p.  5.) 

"  Had  the  mineral  geology  contented  itself  with  this  simple  mineralogical 
statement,  we  should  have  thus  argued  concerning  the  crystaline  phenomena  of 
the  first  mineral  formations ;  conformably  to  the  principles  which  we  have  re- 
cognized. As  the  bone  of  the  first  man,  and  the  wood  of  the  first  tree,  whose 
solidity  was  essential  for  '  giving  shape,  firmness,  and  support,'  to  their  respec- 
tive systems,  were  not,  and  could  not  have  been,  formed  by  the  gradual  processes 
of  ossification  and  lignification,  of  which  they  nevertheless  must  have  exhibited 
the  sensible  phenomena,  or  apparent  indications  ;  so,  reason  directs  us  to  con- 
clude, that  primitive  rock,  whose  solidity  was  equally  essential  for  giving  shape, 
firmness,  and  support  to  the  mineral  system  of  this  globe,  was  not,  and  could  not 
have  been,  formed  by  the  gradual  process  of  precipitation  and  crystalization,  not- 
withstanding any  sensible  phenomena,  apparently  indicative  of  those  processes, 
which  it  may  exhibit ;  but  that  in  the  mineral  kingdom,  as  in  the  animal  and 
vegetable  kingdoms,  the  creating  agent  anticipated  in  his  formations,  by  an  im- 
mediate act,  effects,  whose  sensible  phenomena  could  not  determine  the  mode  of 
their  formation ;  because  the  real  mode  was  in  direct  contradiction  to  the  appa- 
rent indications  of  the  phenomena. 

"  But  the  mineral  geology  has  not  contented  itself  with  that  simple  mineralo- 
gical statement ;  nor  drawn  the  conclusion  which  we  have  drawn,  in  conformity 
with  the  principles,  and  in  observance  of  the  rules,  of  Newton's  philosophy.  It 
affirms,  '  that  the  characters  by  which  geology  is  written  in  the  book  of  nature, 
in  which  it  is  to  be  studied,  are  minerals?  (D'Aubuisson,  Disc.  Pril.  p.  29 ;)  and 
it  '  sees  nothing1  in  that  book  of  nature  but  ' precipitations,  crystalizations,  and 
dissolutions ;'  and  therefore,  because  it  sees  nothing  else,  it  concludes  without 
hesitation,  from  crystaline  phenomena  to  actual  crystalization.  Thus,  by  at- 
tempting the  impossibility  of  deducing  a  universal  principle,  viz.  the  mode  of  first 
formations,  from  the  analysis  of  a  single  individual,  viz.  mineral  matter,  separate 
from  co-ordinate  animal  and  vegetable  matter  ;  and  concluding  from  that  defec- 
tive analysis,  to  the  general  law  of  first  formations ;  it  set  out  with  inadequate 
light,  and  it  is  no  wonder  that  it  ended  in  absolute  darkness ;  for  such  is  its  ele- 
mental chaos,  and  its  chemical  precipitation  of  this  globe :  a  doctrine  so  nearly 
resembling  the  exploded  atomic  philosophy  of  the  Epicurean  school,  that  it  re- 
quires a  very  close  and  laborious  inspection  to  discover  a  single  feature,  by 
which  they  may  be  distinguished  from  each  other." 

This  argument  is  largely  supported  and  illustrated  in  the  work  ;  and  thus  by 
referring  first  formations  of  every  kind  to  an  immediate  act  of  God,  those  im- 
mense periods  of  time  which  geology  demands  for  its  chemical  processes,  are 
rendered  unnecessary.  From  first  formations,  Mr.  Penn  proceeds  to  oppose  the 
notion  that  the  earth  has  undergone  many  general  revolutions,  and  thinks  that 
all  geological  phenomena  may  be  better  explained  by  the  Mosaic  record,  which 
confines  those  general  revolutions  to  two.  Mr.  Penn's  course  of  observation 
will  be  seen  by  the  following  recapitulation  of  the  second  and  third  parts  of  his 
work  : — 

"  That  this  globe,  so  constructed  at  its  origin,  has  undergone  two,  and  only  two, 


262  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES. 

general  changes  or  revolutions  of  its  substance ;  each  of  which  was  caused  by 
the  immediate  will,  intelligence,  and  power  of  God,  exercised  upon  the  work 
which  he  had  formed,  and  directing  the  laws  or  agencies  which  he  had  ordained 
within  it. 

"  That,  by  the  first  change  or  revolution,  [that  of  gathering  the  waters  into 
one  place,  and  making  the  dry  land  appear,]  one  portion  or  division  of  the  sur- 
face of  the  globe  was  suddenly  and  violently  fractured  and  depressed,  in  order  to 
form,  in  the  first  instance,  a  receptacle  or  bed  for  the  waters  universally  diffused 
over  that  surface,  and  to  expose  the  other  portion,  that  it  might  become  a  dwell- 
ing  for  animal  life ;  but  yet,  with  an  ulterior  design,  that  the  receptacle  of  the 
waters  should  eventually  become  the  chief  theatre  of  animal  existence,  by  the 
portion  first  exposed  experiencing  a  similar  fracture  and  depression,  and  thus 
becoming  in  its  turn,  the  receptacle  of  the  same  waters ;  which  should  then  be 
transfused  into  it,  leaving  their  former  receptacle  void  and  dry. 

"  That  this  first  revolution  took  place  before  the  existence,  that  is,  before  the 
creation  of  any  organized  beings. 

"  That  the  sea,  collected  into  this  vast  fractured  cavity  of  the  globe's  surface, 
continued  to  occupy  it  during  1656  years  [from  the  creation  to  the  deluge;]  dur- 
ing which  long  period  of  time,  its  waters  acted  in  various  modes,  chemical  and 
mechanical,  upon  the  several  soils  and  fragments  which  formed  its  bed  ;  and  ma- 
rine organic  matter,  animal  and  vegetable,  was  generated  and  accumulated  in 
vast  abundance. 

"That,  after  the  expiration  of  those  1656  years,  it  pleased  God,  in  a  second 
revolution,  to  execute  his  ulterior  design,  by  repeating  the  amazing  operation  by 
which  he  had  exposed  the  first  earth  ;  and  by  the  disruption  and  depression  of 
that  first  earth  below  the  level  of  the  bed  of  the  first  sea,  to  produce  a  new  bed, 
into  which  the  waters  descended  from  their  former  bed,  leaving  it  to  become  the 
theatre  of  the  future  generations  of  mankind. 

"  That  THIS  PRESENT  EARTH  Was  THAT  FORMER  BED. 

'  "  That  it  must,  therefore,  necessarily  exhibit  manifest  and  universal  evidences 
of  the  vicissitudes  which  it  has  undergone  ;  viz.  of  the  vast  apparent  ruin  occa- 
sioned by  its  first  violent  disruption  and  depression  ;  of  the  presence  and  opera- 
tion of  the  marine  fluid  during  the  long  interval  which  succeeded ;  and,  of  the 
action  and  effects  of  that  fluid  in  its  ultimate  retreat. 

"  Within  the  limits  of  this  general  scheme,  all  speculations  must  be  confined 
which  would  aspire  to  the  quality  of  sound  geology;  yet  vast  and  sublime  is  the 
field  which  it  lays  open,  to  exercise  the  intelligence  and  experience  of  sober  and 
philosophical  mineralogy  and  chemistry.  Upon  this  legitimate  ground,  those 
many  valuable  writers,  who  have  unwarily  lent  their  science  to  uphold  and  pro- 
pagate the  vicious  doctrine  of  a  chaotic  geogony,  may  geologize  with  full  secu- 
rity ;  and  may  there  concur  to  promote  that  true  advancement  of  natural 
philosophy,  which  Newton  holds  to  be  inseparable  from  a  proportionate  advance- 
ment of  the  moral.  They  must  thus  at  length  succeed  in  perfecting  a  true 
philosophical  geology ;  which  never  can  exist,  unless  the  principle  of  Newton 
form  the  foundation,  and  the  relation  of  Moses  the  working  plan." 


PART  SECOND. 

DOCTRINES  OF  THE  HOLY  SCRIPTURES. 


CHAPTER  I. 

The  Existence  of  God. 

The  Divine  authority  of  those  writings  which  are  received  by  Chris- 
tians as  a  revelation  of  infallible  truth,  having  been  established,  our  next 
step  is  seriously,  and  with  simplicity  of  mind,  to  examine  their  contents, 
and  to  collect  from  them  that  ample  information  on  religious  and  moral 
subjects  which  they  profess  to  contain,  and  in  which  it  had  become 
necessary  that  the  world  should  be  supernaturally  instructed.  Agreeably 
to  a  principle  which  has  already  been  laid  down,  I  shall  endeavour,  as 
in  the  case  of  any  other  record,  to  exhibit  their  meaning  by  the  applica- 
tion of  those  plain  rules  of  interpretation  which  have  been  established 
for  such  purposes  by  the  common  agreement  of  the  sober  part  of  man- 
kind. All  the  assistance  within  reach  from  critics,  commentators,  and 
divines,  shall  however  be  resorted  to ;  for,  though  the  water  can  only 
be  drawn  pure  from  the  sacred  fountain  itself,  we  yet  owe  it  to  many 
of  these  guides,  that  they  have  successfully  directed  us  to  the  openings 
through  which  it  breaks,  and  led  the  way  into  the  depth  of  the  stream. 

The  doctrine  which  the  first  sentence  in  this  Divine  revelation  unfold? 
is,  that  there  is  a  God,  the  Creator  of  heaven  and  earth  ;  and  as  this 
is  fundamental  to  the  whole  scheme  of  duty,  promise,  and  hope,  which 
the  books  of  Scripture  successively  unfold  and  explain,  it  demands  our 
earliest  consideration. 

In  three  distinct  ways  do  the  sacred  writers  furnish  us  with  informa- 
tion on  this  great  and  essential  subject,  the  existence  and  the  character 
of  God  ; — from  the  names  by  which  he  is  designated  ;  from  the  actions 
ascribed  to  him ;  and  from  the  attributes  with  which  he  is  invested  in 
tlieir  invocations  and  praises ;  and  in  those  lofty  descriptions  of  his 
nature  which,  under  the  inspiration  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  they  have  record- 
ed for  the  instruction  of  the  world.  These  attributes  will  be  afterward 
particularly  considered ;  but  the  impression  of  the  general  view  of  the 
.Divine  character,  as  thus  revealed,  is  too  important  to  be  omitted. 

The  names  of  God  as  recorded  in  Scripture,  convey  at  once  ideas  of 
overwhelming  greatness  and  glory,  mingled  with  that  awful  mysterious- 
ness  with  which,  to  all  finite  minds,  and  especially  to  the  minds  of 
mortals,  the  Divine  essence  and  mode  of  existence  must  ever  be  invest- 
ed.    Though  One,  he  is  D'n^N.  Elohim,  Gcds,  persons  adorable.     He 


204  THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES.  [PART 

is  mrr>  Jehovah,  self  existing,  ^x,  El,  strong,  powerful;  rvnN>  Ehieh, 
J  am,  I  will  be,  self  existence,  independency,  all-sufficiency,  immutability, 
eternity ;  iff,  Shaddai,  almighty,  all-sufficient ;  px.  Adon,  Supporter, 
Lord,  Judge.  These  are  among  the  adorable  appellatives  of  God  which 
are  scattered  throughout  the  revelation  which  he  has  been  pleased  to 
make  of  himself:  but  on  one  occasion  he  was  pleased  more  particularly 
to  declare  "  his  name,"  that  is,  such  of  the  qualities  and  attributes  of  the 
Divine  nature,  as  mortals  are  the  most  interested  in  knowing ;  and  to 
unfold,  not  only  his  natural,  but  those  also  of  his  moral  attributes  by 
which  his  conduct  toward  his  creatures  is  regulated.  "  And  the  Lord 
passed  by  and  proclaimed,  TJie  Lord,  the  Lord  God,  merciful  and  gra- 
cious, long  suffering,  and  abundant  in  goodness  and  truth,  keeping  mercy 
for  thousands,  forgiving  iniquity,  transgression,  arid  sin,  and  that  will 
by  no  means  clear  the  guilty ;  visiting  the  iniquity  of  the  fathers  upon 
the  children,  and  upon  tlie  children's  children,  unto  the  third  and  fourth 
generation"  Exod.  xxxiv.  This  is  the  most  ample  and  particular  de- 
scription of  the  character  of  God,  as  given  by  himself  in  the  sacred 
records ;  and  the  import  of  the  several  titles  by  which  he  has  thus  in 
his  infinite  condescension  manifested  himself,  has  been  thus  exhibited. 
He  is  not  only  Jehovah,  self  existent,  and  El,  the  strong  or  mighty 
God ;  but  "  Dim>  Rochum,  the  merciful  being,  who  is  full  of  tenderness 
and  compassion,  pjn,  Chanun,  the  gracious  one,  he  whose  nature  is 
goodness  itself — the  loving  God.  D'3X  *px>  Erec  Apayim,  long  suffer- 
ing, the  being  who,  because  of  his  tenderness,  is  not  easily  irritated,  but 
suffers  long  and  is  kind.  2%  Rab,  the  great  or  mighty  one.  non» 
Chesed,  the  bountiful  Being ;  he  who  is  exuberant  in  his  beneficence. 
nox,  Emeth,  the  truth,  or  true  one,  he  alone  who  can  neither  deceive 
nor  be  deceived,  non  *ii'J>  Notser  Chesed,  the  preserver  of  bounti- 
fulness,  he  whose  beneficence  never  ends,  keeping  mercy  for  thousands 
of  generations,  showing  compassion  and  mercy  while  the  world  endures, 
nxtani  pVtb\  py  X^J>  Nose  dvon  vapeshd  vechataah,  he  who  bears  away 
iniquity,  transgression  and  sin  ;  properly  the  Redeemer,  the  Pardoner, 
the  Forgiver,  the  Being  whose  prerogative  it  is  to  forgive  .sin,  and  save 
the  soul.  npJ'  X*7  HpJ«  Nakeh  lo  yinnakeh,  the  righteous  Judge,  who 
distributes  justice  with  an  impartial  hand.  And  p_p  ips»  Pared,  dvon, 
<SfC,  lie  who  visits  iniquity,  he  who  punishes  transgressors,  and  from 
whose  justice  no  sinner  can  escape  :  the  God  of  retributive  and  vindic- 
tive justice."  (Dr.  A.  Clarke  in  he.) 

The  second  means  by  which  the  Scriptures  convey  to  us  the  know, 
ledge  of  God,  is  by  the  actions  which  they  ascribe  to  him.  They  con 
tain  indeed  the  important  record  of  his  dealings  with  men  in  every  age 
which  is  comprehended  within  the  limit  of  the  sacred  history  ;  and,  by 
prophetic  declaration,  they  also  exhibit  the  principles  on  which  he  will 
govern  the  world  to  the  end  of  time ;    so  that  the   whole  course  of 


SECOND. J  THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES.  265 

the  Divine  administration  may  be  considered  as  exhibiting  a  singularly 
illustrative  comment  upon  those  attributes  of  his  nature,  which,  in  their 
abstract  form,  are  contained  in  such  declarations  as  those  which  have 
been  just  quoted.  The  first  act  ascribed  to  God  is  that  of  creating  the 
heavens  and  the  earth  out  of  nothing ;  and  by  his  fiat  alone  arranging 
their  parts,  and  peopling  them  with  living  creatures.  By  this  were 
manifested — his  eternity  and  self  existence,  as  he  who  creates  must  be 
before  all  creatures,  and  he  who  gives  being  to  others  can  himself  de- 
rive it  from  none ;  his  almighty  power,  shown  both  in  the  act  of  crea- 
tion, and  in  the  number  and  vastness  of  the  objects  so  produced  : 
his  wisdom,  in  their  arrangement,  and  in  their  fitness  to  their  respective 
ends  :  and  his  goodness  as  the  whole  tended  to  the  happiness  of  sentient 
beings.  The  foundations  of  his  natural  and  moral  government  are  also 
made  manifest  by  his  creative  acts.  In  what  he  made  out  of  nothing 
he  had  an  absolute  right  and  prerogative  of  ordering  and  disposal  ;  so 
that  to  alter  or  destroy  his  own  work,  and  to  prescribe  the  laws  by  which 
the  intelligent  and  rational  part  of  his  creatures  should  be  governed,  are 
rights  which  none  can  question.  Thus  on  the  one  hand  his  character 
of  Lord  or  Governor  is  established,  and  on  the  other  our  duty  of  lowly 
homage  and  absolute  obedience. 

Agreeably  to  this,  as  soon  as  man  was  created,  he  was  placed  under 
a  rule  of  conduct.  Obedience  was  to  be  followed  with  the  continuance 
of  the  Divine  favour ;  transgression,  with  death.  The  event  called  forth 
new  manifestations  of  the  character  of  God.  His  tender  mercy,  in  the 
compassion  showed  to  the  fallen  pair  ;  his  justice,  in  forgiving  them 
only  in  the  view  of  a  satisfaction  to  be  hereafter  offered  to  his  justice  by 
an  innocent  representative  of  the  sinning  race ;  his  love  to  that  race, 
in  giving  his  own  Son  to  become  this  Redeemer,  and  in  the  fulness  of 
time  to  die  for  the  sins  of  the  whole  world  ;  and  his  holiness,  in  con- 
necting with  this  provision  for  the  pardon  of  man  the  means  of  restoring 
him  to  a  sinless  state,  and  to  the  obliterated  image  of  God  in  which  he 
had  been  created.  Exemplifications  of  the  Divine  mercy  are  traced 
from  age  to  age,  in  his  establishing  his  own  worship  among  men,  and 
remitting  the  punishment  of  individual  and  national  offences  in  answer 
to  prayer  offered  from  penitent  hearts,  and  in  dependence  upon  the 
typified  or  actually  offered  universal  sacrifice  : — of  his  condescension,  in 
stooping  to  the  cases  of  individuals ;  in  his  dispensations  both  of  provi 
dence  and  grace,  by  showing  respect  to  the  poor  and  humble ;  and, 
principally,  by  the  incarnation  of  God  in  the  form  of  a  servant,  admit- 
ting men  into  familiar  and  friendly  intercourse  with  himself,  and  then 
entering  into  heaven  to  be  their  patron  and  advocate,  until  they  should 
be  received  unto  the  same  glory,  "  and  so  be  for  ever  with  the  Lord  :" — 
of  his  strictly  righteous  government,  in  the  destruction  of  the  old 
world,  the  cities  of  the  plain,  the  nations  of  Canaan,  and  all  ancient 


266  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

states,  upon  their  "  filling  up  the  measure  of  their  iniquities  ;"  and,  to 
show  that  "  he  will  by  no  means  clear  the  guilty  ;"  in  the  numerous  and 
severe  punishments  inflicted  even  upon  the  chosen  seed  of  Abraham, 
because  of  their  transgressions  : — of  his  long  suffering,  in  frequent 
warnings,  delays,  and  corrective  judgments,  inflicted  upon  individuals 
and  nations,  before  sentence  of  utter  excision  and  destruction  : — of 
faithfulness  and  truth,  in  the  fulfilment  of  promises,  often  many  ages 
after  they  were  given,  as  in  the  promises  to  Abraham  respecting  the 
possession  of  the  land  of  Canaan  by  his  seed  ;  and  in  all  the  "  promises 
made  to  the  fathers"  respecting  the  advent,  vicarious  death,  and  illustrious 
offices  of  the  Christ,  the  Saviour  of  the  world  : — of  his  immutability, 
in  the  constant  and  unchanging  laws  and  principles  of  his  government, 
which  remain  to  this  day  precisely  the  same,  in  every  thing  universal. 
as  when  first  promulgated,  and  have  been  the  rule  of  his  conduct  in  all 
places  as  well  as  through  all  time  : — of  his  prescience  of  future  events, 
manifested  by  the  predictions  of  Scripture  ;  and  of  the  depth  and  sta- 
bility of  his  counsel,  as  illustrated  in  that  plan  and  purpose  of  bringing 
back  a  revolted  world  to  obedience  and  felicity,  which  we  find  steadily 
kept  in  view  in  the  Scriptural  history  of  the  acts  of  God  in  former  ages  ; 
which  is  still  the  end  toward  which  all  his  dispensations  bend,  however 
wide  and  mysterious  their  sweep ;  and  which  they  will  finally  accom- 
plish, as  we  learn  from  the  prophetic  history  of  the  future,  contained  in 
the  Old  and  New  Testaments. 

Thus  the  course  of  Divine  operation  in  the  world  has  from  age  to  age 
been  a  manifestation  of  the  Divine  character,  continually  receiving  new 
and  stronger  illustrations  to  the  completion  of  the  Christian  revelation 
by  the  ministry  of  Christ  and  his  inspired  followers,  and  still  placing 
itself  in  brighter  light  and  more  impressive  aspects  as  the  scheme  of 
human  redemption  runs  on  to  its  consummation.  From  all  the  acts  of 
God  as  recorded  in  the  Scriptures,  we  are  taught  that  he  alone  is  God ; 
that  he  is  present  every  where  to  sustain  and  govern  all  things ;  that  his 
wisdom  is  infinite,  his  counsel  settled,  and  his  power  irresistible ;  that 
he  is  holy,  just,  and  good ;  the  Lord  and  the  Judge,  but  the  Father  and 
the  Friend  of  man. 

More  at  large  do  we  learn  what  God  is,  from  the  declarations  of  the 
inspired  writings. 

As  to  his  substance,  that  "  God  is  a  Spirit"  As  to  his  duration, 
that  '■'■from  everlasting  to  everlasting  he  is  God  ;"  "  the  King,  eternal, 
immortal,  invisible."  That,  after  all  the  manifestations  he  has  made  of 
himself,  he  is  from  the  infinite  perfection  and  glory  of  his  nature,  incom- 
prehensible ;  "  ho,  these  are  but  parts  of  his  ways,  and  Jiow  little  a  por- 
tion is  heard  of  him  !"  "  Touching  the  Almighty,  we  cannot  find  him  out." 
That  he  is  unchangeable,  "  the  Father  of  Lights  with  njiom  there  is  no 
variableness,  neither  shadow  of  turning."     That  "  he  is  the  fountain  of 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  267 

Life,"  and  the  only  independent  Being  in  the  universe,  "  who  only  liath 
immortality"  That  every  other  being,  however  exalted,  has  its  existence 
from  him  ;  "for  by  him  were  all  things  created,  which  are  in  heaven  and 
in  earth,  whether  they  are  visible  or  invisible."  That  the  existence  of 
every  thing  is  upheld  by  him,  no  creature  being  for  a  moment  inde- 
pendent of  his  support ;  "  by  him  all  things  consist,"  "  upholding  all 
things  by  the  word  of  his  power."  That  he  is  omnipresent  :  "  Do  not 
I  fill  heaven  and  earth  with  my  presence,  saith  the  Lord?"  That  he  is 
omniscient  :  "  All  things  are  naked  and  open  before  the  eyes  of  him 
with  whom  we  have  to  do."  That  he  is  the  absolute  Lord  and  owner 
of  all  things :  "  The  heavens,  even  the  heaven  of  heavens,  are  thine,  and 
all  the  parts  of  them."  "  The  earth  is  thine,  and  the  fulness  thereof, 
the  world  and  them  that  dwell  therein."  "  He  doeth  according  to  his  will 
in  the  armies  of  heaven  and  among  the  inhabitants  of  the  earth."  That 
his  providence  extends  to  the  minutest  objects :  "  The  hairs  of  your 
head  are  all  numbered."  "  Are  not  tico  sparrows  sold  for  a  farthing  ? 
and  one  of  them  shall  not  fall  on  the  ground  without  your  Father."  That 
he  is  a  being  of  unspotted  purity  and  perfect  rectitude  :  "Holy,  holy, 
holy,  Lord  God  of  hosts  !"  "  A  God  of  truth,  and  in  whom  is  no  iniquity." 
"  Qf  purer  eyes  than  to  behold  iniquity."  That  he  is  just  in  the  adminis- 
tration of  his  government :  "  Shall  not  the  Judge  of  the  whole  earth  do 
right  ?"  "  Clouds  and  darkness  are  round  about  him  ;  judgment  and  jus- 
tice are  tlie  habitation  of  his  throne."  That  his  wisdom  is  unsearchable : 
"  O  the  depth  of  the  wisdom  and  knowledge  of  God!  how  unsearchable 
are  his  judgments,  and  his  ways  past  finding  out !"  And,  finally,  that  he 
is  good  and  merciful  :  "  Thou  art  good,  and  thy  mercy  endureth  for 
ever."  "His  tender  mercy  is  over  all  his  works."  "  God,  who  is  rich 
in  mercy,  for  his  great  love  wherewith  he  loved  us,  even  when  we  were 
dead  in  sins,  hath  quickened  us  together  with  Christ."  "  God  was  in 
Christ  reconciling  the  world  unto  himself,  not  imputing  their  trespasses 
unto  them."  "  God  hath  given  to  us  eternal  life,  and  this  life  is  in  his 
Son." 

Under  these  deeply  awful,  but  consolatory  views,  do  the  Scriptures 
present  to  us  the  supreme  object  of  our  worship  and  trust,  dwelling  upon 
each  of  the  above  particulars  with  inimitable  sublimity  and  beauty  of 
language,  and  with  an  inexhaustible  variety  of  illustration ;  nor  can  we 
compare  these  views  of  the  Divine  nature  with  the  conceptions  of  the 
most  enlightened  of  pagans,  without  feeling  how  much  reason  we  have 
for  everlasting  gratitude,  that  a  revelation  so  explicit,  and  so  compre. 
hensive,  should  have  been  made  to  us  on  a  subject  which  only  a  revela- 
tion from  God  himself  could  have  made  known.  It  is  thus  that  Christian 
philosophers,  even  when  they  do  not  use  the  language  of  the  Scriptures, 
are  able  to  speak  on  this  great  and  mysterious  doctrine  in  language  so 
clear,  and  with  conceptions  so  noble ;  in  a  manner  too  so  equable,  so 


268  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

different  to  the  sages  of  antiquity,  who,  if  at  any  time  they  approach  the 
truth,  when  speaking  of  the  Divine  nature,  never  fail  to  mingle  with  it 
some  essentially  erroneous  or  grovelling  conception.  "  By  the  word 
God,"  says  Dr.  Barrow,  "  we  mean  a  Being  of  infinite  wisdom,  good- 
ness, and  power,  the  creator  and  the  governor  of  all  things,  to  whom  the 
great  attrihutes  of  eternity  and  independency,  omniscience  and  immensity, 
perfect  holiness  and  purity,  perfect  justice  and  veracity,  complete  hap- 
piness, glorious  majesty,  and  supreme  right  of  dominion,  belong  ;  and  to 
whom  the  highest  veneration,  and  most  profound  submission  and  obedi- 
ence, are  due."  (Barrow  on  the  Creed.)  "  Our  notion  of  Deity,"  says 
Bishop  Pearson,  "  doth  expressly  signify  a  Being  or  Nature  of  infinite 
perfection ;  and  the  infinite  perfection  of  a  Being  or  Nature  consists  in 
this,  that  it  be  absolutely  and  essentially  necessary  ;  an  actual  Being  of 
itself;  and  potential  or  causative  of  all  beings  beside  itself,  independent 
from  any  other,  upon  which  all  things  else  depend,  and  by  which  all 
things  else  are  governed."  (Pearson  on  the  Creed.)  "  God  is  a  Being, 
and  not  any  kind  of  being ;  but  a  substance,  which  is  the  foundation  of 
other  beings.  And  not  only  a  substance,  but  perfect.  Yet  many  beings 
are  perfect  in  their  kind,  yet  limited  and  finite.  But  God  is  absolutely, 
fully,  and  every  way  infinitely  perfect ;  and  therefore  above  spirits,  above 
angels  who  are  perfect  comparatively.  God's  infinite  perfection  includes 
all  the  attributes,  even  the  most  excellent.  It  excludes  all  dependency, 
borrowed  existence,  composition,  corruption,  mortality,  contingency, 
ignorance,  unrighteousness,  weakness,  misery,  and  all  imperfections 
whatever.  It  includes  necessity  of  being,  independency,  perfect  unity, 
simplicity,  immensity,  eternity,  immortality  ;  the  most  perfect  life,  know- 
ledge, wisdom,  integrity,  power,  glory,  bliss,  and  all  these  in  the  highest 
degree.  We  cannot  pierce  into  the  secrets  of  this  eternal  Being.  Our 
reason  comprehends  but  little  of  him,  and  when  it  can  proceed  no  farther, 
faith,  comes  in,  and  we  believe  far  more  than  we  can  understand :  and 
this  our  belief  is  not  contrary  to  reason  ;  but  reason  itself  dictates  unto 
us  that  we  must  believe  far  more  of  God  than  it  can  inform  us  of." 
(Lawson's  Theo-Politica.)  To  these  we  may  add  an  admirable  passage 
from  Sir  Isaac  Newton  :  "  The  word  God  frequently  signifies  Lord;  but 
every  lord  is  not  God ;  it  is  the  dominion  of  a  spiritual  Being  or  Lord, 
that  constitutes  God  ;  true  dominion,  true  God ;  supreme,  the  supreme  ; 
feigned,  the  false  God.  From  such  true  dominion  it  follows  that  the 
true  God  is  living,  intelligent,  and  powerful ;  and  from  his  other  perfec- 
tions that  he  is  supreme,  or  supremely  perfect ;  he  is  eternal  and  infinite ; 
omnipotent  and  omniscient ;  that  is,  he  endures  from  eternity  to  eternity ; 
and  is  present  from  infinity  to  infinity.  He  governs  all  things  that  exist, 
and  knows  all  things  that  are  to  be  known  :  he  is  not  eternity  or  infinity, 
but  eternal  and  infinite  ;  he  is  not  duration  or  space,  but  he  endures  and 
is  present ;  he  endures  always,  and  is  present  every  where  ;  he  is  omni- 


SECOND. J  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  269 

present,  not  only  virtually,  but  also  substantially  ;  for  power  without  sub- 
stance cannot  subsist.  All  things  are  contained  and  move  in  him  ;  but 
without  any  mutual  passion ;  he  suffers  nothing  from  the  motions  of 
bodies  ;  nor  do  they  undergo  any  resistance  from  his  omnipresence.  It 
is  confessed  that  God  exists  necessarily,  and  by  the  same  necessity  he 
exists  always  and  every  where.  Hence  also  he  must  be  perfectly  simi- 
lar, all  eye,  all  ear,  all  arm,  all  the  power  of  perceiving,  understanding, 
and  acting ;  but  after  a  manner  not  at  all  corporeal,  after  a  manner  not 
like  that  of  men,  after  a  manner  wholly  to  us  unknown.  He  is  destitute 
of  all  body,  and  all  bodily  shape ;  and  therefore  cannot  be  seen,  heard, 
or  touched ;  nor  ought  he  to  be  worshipped  under  the  representation  of 
any  thing  corporeal.  We  have  ideas  of  the  attributes  of  God,  but  do 
not  know  the  substance  of  even  any  thing :  we  see  only  the  figures  and 
colours  of  bodies,  hear  only  sounds,  touch  only  the  outward  surfaces 
smell  only  odours,  and  taste  tastes ;  and  do  not,  cannot,  by  any  sense, 
or  reflex  act,  know  their  inward  substances  :  and  much  less  can  we  have 
any  notion  of  the  substance  of  God.  We  know  him  by  his  properties 
and  attributes." 

It  is  observable  that  neither  Moses,  the  first  of  the  inspired  penmen, 
nor  any  of  the  authors  of  the  succeeding  canonical  books,  enters  into 
any  proof  of  this  first  principle  of  religion,  that  there  is  a  God.  They 
all  assume  it  as  a  truth  commonly  known  and  admitted.  There  is  indeed 
in  the  sacred  volume  no  allusion  to  the  existence  of  Atheistical  senti- 
ments, till  some  ages  after  Moses,  and  then  it  is  not  quite  clear  whether 
speculative  or  practical  Atheism  be  spoken  of.  From  this  circumstance 
we  learn  that,  previous  to  the  time  of  Moses,  the  idea  of  one  supreme 
and  infinitely  perfect  God  was  familiar  to  men  ;  that  it  had  descended 
to  them  from  the  earliest  ages ;  and  also  that  it  was  a  truth  of  original 
revelation,  and  not  one  which  the  sages  of  preceding  times  had  wrought 
out  by  rational  investigation  and  deduction.  Had  that  been  the  fact, 
we  might  have  expected  some  intimation  of  it :  and  that  if  those  views 
of  God  which  are  found  in  the  Pentateuch,  were  discovered  by  the  suc- 
cessive investigations  of  wise  men  among  the  ancients,  the  progress  of 
this  wonderful  discovery  would  have  been  marked  by  Moses ;  or  if  one 
only  had  demonstrated  this  truth  by  his  personal  researches,  that  some 
grateful  mention  of  so  great  a  sage,  of  so  celebrated  a  moral  teacher, 
would  have  been  made.  A  truth  too  so  essential  to  the  whole  Mosaic 
system,  and  upon  which  his  own  official  authority  rested,  had  it  originated 
from  successful  human  investigation,  would  seem  naturally  to  have  re- 
quired a  statement  of  the  arguments  by  which  it  had  been  demonstrated, 
as  a  fit  introduction  to  a  book  in  which  he  professed  to  record  revela- 
tions received  from  this  newly  discovered  being,  and  to  enforce  laws 
uttered  under  his  command.  Nothing  of  this  kind  is  attempted ;  and 
the  sacred  historian  and  lawgiver  proceeds  at  once  to  narrate  the  act* 


270  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

of  God,  and  to  declare  his  will.  The  history  which  he  wrote,  however, 
affords  the  reason  why  the  introduction  of  formal  proof  of  the  existence 
of  oue  true  God  was  thought  unnecessary.  The  first  man,  we  are  in- 
formed,  knew  God,  not  only  from  his  works,  but  by  sensible  manifesta- 
tion and  converse ;  the  same  Divine  appearances  were  made  to  Noah, 
to  Abraham,  to  Isaac,  to  Jacob ;  and  when  Moses  wrote,  persons  were 
still  living  who  had  conversed  with  those  who  conversed  with  God 
or  were  descended  from  the  same  families  to  whom  God  "at  sundry 
times"  had  appeared  in  visible  glory,  or  in  angelic  forms.  These  Divine 
manifestations  were  also  matters  of  public  notoriety  among  the  primitive 
families  of  mankind ;  from  them  the  tradition  was  transmitted  to  their 
descendants  ;  and  the  idea  once  communicated,  was  confirmed  by  every 
natural  object  which  they  saw  around  them.  It  continued  even  after 
the  introduction  of  idolatry ;  and  has  never,  except  among  the  most 
ignorant  of  the  heathen,  been  to  this  day  obliterated  by  polytheistic 
superstitions.  It  was  thus  that  the  knowledge  of  God  was  communicated 
to  the  ancient  world.  No  discovery  of  this  truth,  either  in  the  time  of 
Moses,  or  in  any  former  age,  was  made  by  human  research ;  neither 
the  date  nor  the  process  of  it  could  therefore  be  stated  in  his  writings ; 
and  it  would  have  been  trifling  to  moot  a  question  which  had  been  sc 
fully  determined,  and  to  attempt  to  prove  a  doctrine  universally  received. 
That  the  idea  of  a  supreme  First  Cause  was  at  first  obtained  by  the 
exercise  of  reason,  is  thus  contradicted  by  the  facts,  that  the  first  man 
received  the  knowledge  of  God  by  sensible  converse  with  him,  and  that 
this  doctrine  was  transmitted,  with  the  confirmation  of  successive  visible 
manifestations,  to  the  early  ancestors  of  all  nations.  Whether  the  dis- 
covery, therefore,  of  the  simple  truth  of  the  existence  of  a  First  Cause 
be  within  the  compass  of  human  powers,  is  a  point  which  cannot  be  de- 
termined by  matter  of  fact ;  because  it  may  be  proved  that  those  nations 
by  whom  that  doctrine  has  been  acknowledged,  had  their  origin  from  a 
common  stock,  resident  in  that  part  of  the  world  in  which  the  primitive 
revelations  were  given.  They  were  therefore  never  in  circumstances 
in  which  such  an  experiment  upon  the  power  or  weakness  of  the  human 
mind  could  be  made.  Among  some  uncivilized  tribes,  such  as  the  Hot- 
tentots of  Africa,  and  the  aborigines  of  New  South  Wales,  the  idea  of  a 
Supreme  Being  is  probably  entirely  obliterated  ;  some  notions  of  spiritual 
existences,  superior  in  power  to  man,  and  possessed  of  creative  and  de- 
structive powers,  do  however  remain,  naturally  tending  to  that  train  of 
reflection,  which  in  better  instructed  minds  issues  in  the  apprehension  of 
one  Supreme  and  Divine  Intelligence.  But  no  instance  has  been  known 
of  the  knowledge  of  God  having  thus,  or  by  any  other  means,  originating 
in  themselves,  been  recovered  ;  if  restored  to  them  at  all,  it  has  been  by 
the  instruction  of  others,  and  not  by  the  rational  investigation  of  even 
superior  minds  in  their  own  tribes.     Wherever  there  has  been  sufficient 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  271 

mental  cultivation  to  call  forth  the  exercise  of  the  rational  faculty  in 
search  of  spiritual  and  moral  truth,  the  idea  of  a  First  Cause  has  been 
previously  known ;  wherever  that  idea  has  been  totally  obliterated,  the 
intellectual  powers  of  man  have  not  been  in  a  state  of  exercise,  and  no 
curiosity  as  to  such  speculations  has  been  awakened.  Matter  of  fact 
does  not  therefore  support  the  notion,  that  the  existence  of  God  is  dis- 
coverable by  the  unassisted  faculties  of  man ;  and  there  is,  I  conceive, 
very  slender  reason  to  admit  the  abstract  probability. 

A  sufficient  number  of  facts  are  obvious  to  the  most  cursory  observa- 
tion to  show,  that  without  some  degree  of  education,  man  is  wholly  the 
creature  of  appetite.  Labour,  feasting,  and  sleep,  divide  his  time,  and 
wholly  occupy  his  thoughts.  If  therefore  we  suppose  a  First  Cause  to  be 
discoverable  by  human  investigation,  we  must  seek  for  the  instances 
among  a  people  whose  civilization  and  intellectual  culture  have  roused 
the  mind  from  its  torpor,  and  given  it  an  interest  in  abstract  and  philo- 
sophic truth ;  for  to  a  people  so  circumstanced  as  never  to  have  heard 
of  God,  the  question  of  the  existence  of  a  First  Cause  must  be  one  of  mere 
philosophy.  Religious  motives,  whether  of  hope  or  fear,  have  no  influ- 
ence where  no  religion  exists,  and  its  very  first  principle  is  here  sup- 
posed to  be  as  yet  undiscovered.  Before,  therefore,  we  can  conceive 
the  human  mind  to  have  reached  a  state  of  activity  sufficiently  energetic 
and  curious  even  to  commence  such  an  inquiry,  we  must  suppose  a 
gradual  progress  from  the  uncivilized  state,  to  a  state  of  civil  and 
scientific  cultivation,  and  that  without  religion  of  any  kind ;  without 
moral  control ;  without  principles  of  justice,  except  such  as  may  have 
been  slowly  elaborated  from  those  relations  which  concern  the  grosser 
interests  of  men,  if  even  they  be  possible  ;  without  conscience  ;  without 
hope  or  fear  in  another  life.  That  no  society  of  civilized  men  has  ever 
been  constituted  under  such  circumstances,  is  what  no  one  will  deny ; 
that  it  is  possible  to  raise  a  body  of  men  into  that  degree  of  civil  im- 
provement which  would  excite  the  passion  for  philosophic  investigation 
without  the  aid  of  religion,  which,  in  its  lowest  forms  of  superstition, 
admits  in  a  defective  degree  what  is  implied  in  the  existence  of  God,  a 
superior,  creative,  governing,  and  destroying  power,  can  have  no  proof, 
and  is  contradicted  by  every  fact  and  analogy  with  which  we  are  ac- 
quainted. Under  the  influence  and  control  of  religion,  all  states,  ancient 
and  modern,  have  hitherto  been  formed  and  maintained.  It  has  entered 
essentially  into  all  their  legislative  and  gubernative  institutions ;  and 
Atheism  is  so  obviously  dissocializing,  that  even  the  philosophic  Atheists 
of  Greece  and  Rome  confined  it  to  their  esoteric  doctrine,  and  were 
equally  zealous  with  others  to  maintain  the  public  religion  as  a  restraint 
upon  the  multitude,  without  which  they  clearly  enough  discerned  that 
human  laws,  and  merely  human  motives,  would  be  totally  ineffectual  to 
prevent  that  selfish  gratification  of  the  passions,  the  enmities,  and  the 


272  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

cupidity  of  men,  which  would  break  up  every  community  into  its  original 
fragments,  and  arm  every  man  against  his  fellow. 

From  this  we  may  conclude,  that  man  without  religion  cannot  exist  in 
that  state  of  civility  and  cultivation  in  which  his  intellectual  powers  are 
disposed  to,  or  capable  of,  such  a  course  of  inquiry  as  might  lead  him  to 
a  knowledge  of  God  ;  and  that,  as  a  mere  barbarian,  he  would  be  wholly 
occupied  with  the  gratification  of  his  appetites,  or  his  sloth.  Should  we 
however  suppose  it  possible,  that  those  who  had  no  previous  knowledge 
of  God,  or  of  superior  invisible  powers,  might  be  brought  to  the  habits 
of  civil  life,  and  be  engaged  in  the  pursuit  of  various  knowledge,  (which 
itself  however  is  very  incredible,)  it  would  still  remain  a  question, 
whether,  provided  no  idea  from  tradition  or  instruction  had  been 
suggested  of  the  existence  of  spiritual  superior  beings,  or  of  a  supreme 
Creator  or  Ruler,  such  a  truth  would  be  within  the  reach  of  man,  even 
in  an  imperfect  form.  We  have  already  seen,  that  a  truth  may  appear 
exceedingly  simple,  important,  and  evident,  when  once  known,  and  on 
this  account  its  demonstration  may  be  considered  easy,  which  neverthe- 
less has  been  the  result  of  much  previous  research  on  the  part  of  the 
discoverer.  {Vide  part  i,  c.  iv.)  The  abundant  rational  evidence  of  the 
existence  of  God,  which  may  now  be  so  easily  collected,  and  which  is 
so  convincing,  is  therefore  no  proof,  that  without  instruction  from 
Heaven  the  human  mind  would  ever  have  made  the  discovery.  "  God 
is  the  only  way  to  himself;  he  cannot  in  the  least  be  come  at,  defined 
or  demonstrated  by  human  reason ;  for  where  would  the  inquirer  fix 
his  beginning  ?  He  is  to  search  for  something  he  knows  not  what ;  a 
nature  without  known  properties  ;  a  being  without  a  name.  It  is  im- 
possible for  such  a  person  to  declare  or  imagine  what  it  is  he  would 
discourse  of,  or  inquire  into  ;  a  nature  he  has  not  the  least  apprehension 
of;  a  subject  he  has  not  the  least  glimpse  of,  in  whole  or  in  part ; 
which  he  must  separate  from  all  doubt,  inconsistencies,  and  errors ;  he 
must  demonstrate  without  one  known  or  sure  principle  to  ground  it  upon  ; 
and  draw  certain  necessary  conclusions  whereon  to  rest  his  judgment, 
without  the  least  knowledge  of  one  term  or  proposition  to  fix  his  pro- 
cedure upon  ;  and  therefore  can  never  know  whether  his  conclusion  be 
consequent,  or  not  consequent,  truth  or  falsehood,  which  is  just  the  same 
in  science  as  in  architecture,  to  raise  a  building  without  a  foundation. ,: 
(Ellis's  Knowledge  of  Divine  Things.) 

"  Suppose  a  person,  whose  powers  of  argumentation  are  improved  to 
the  utmost  pitch  of  human  capacity,  but  who  has  received  no  idea  of 
God  by  any  revelation,  whether  from  tradition,  Scripture,  or  inspiration, 
how  is  he  to  convince  himself  that  God  is,  and  from  whence  is  he  to 
iearn  what  Cod  is?  That  of  which  as  yet  he  knows  nothing,  cannot  be 
a  subject  of  his  thought,  his  reasonings,  or  his  conversation.  He  can 
neither  affirm  nor  deny  till  he  know  what  is  to  be  affirmed  or  deived. 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  273 

From  whence  then  is  our  philosopher  to  divine,  in  the  first  instance,  his 
idea  of  the  infinite  Being,  concerning  the  reality  of  whose  existence  he 
is,  in  the  second  place,  to  decide  !"  (Hare's  Preservative  against  So- 
cinianism.) 

"  Would  a  single  individual,  or  even  a  single  pair  of  the  human  race, 
or  indeed  several  pairs  of  such  beings  as  we  are,  if  dropt  from  the  hands 
of  their  Maker  in  the  most  genial  soil  and  climate  of  this  globe,  without 
a  single  idea  or  notion  engraved  on  their  minds,  ever  think  of  instituting 
such  an  inquiry ;  or  short  and  simple  as  the  process  of  investigation  is*, 
would  they  be  able  to  conduct  it,  should  it  somehow  occur  to  themi?- 
No  man  who  has  paid  due  attention  to  the  means  by  which  all  our  ideas 
of  external  objects  are  introduced  into  our  minds  through  the  medium 
of  the  senses ;  or  to  the  still  more  refined  process  by  which  reflecting 
on  what  passes  in  our  minds  themselves,  when  we  combine  or  analyze 
these  ideas,  we  acquire  the  rudiments  of  all  our  knowledge  of  intellectual 
objects,  will  pretend  that  they  would.  The  efforts  of  intellect  necessary 
to  discover  an  unknown  truth,  are  so  much  greater  than  those  which 
may  be  sufficient  to  comprehend  that  truth,  and  feel  the  force  of  the 
evidence  on  which  it  rests,  when  fairly  stated,  that  for  one  man,  whose 
intellectual  powers  are  equal  to  the  former,  ten  thousand  are  only  equal 
to  the  latter."  (Gleig's  Stackhovse  Intro.) 

"  Between  matter  and  spirit,  things  visible  and  invisible,  time  and 
eternity,  beings  finite  and  beings  infinite,  objects  of  sense  and  objects 
of  faith,  the  connection  is  not  perceptible  to  human  observation.  Though 
we  push  our  researches  therefore  to  the  extreme  point,  whither  the  light 
of  nature  can  carry  us,  they  will  in  the  end  be  abruptly  terminated,  and 
we  must  stop  short  at  an  immeasurable  distance  between  the  creature 
and  the  Creator."  (Van  MilderVs  Discourses.) 

These  observations  have  great  weight,  and  though  we  allow,  that  the 
argument  which  proves  that  the  effects  with  which  *we  are  surrounded 
must  have  been  caused,  and  thus  leads  us  up  through  a  chain  of  sub- 
ordinate  cause  to  one  First  Cause,  has  in  it  a  simplicity,  an  obviousness, 
and  a  force,  which,  when  we  are  previously  furnished  with  the  idea  of 
God,  makes  it  at  first  sight  difficult  to  conceive,  that  men,  under  any 
degree  of  cultivation,  should  be  inadequate  to  it ;  yet,  if  the  human 
mind  ever  commenced  such  an  inquiry  at  all,  it  is  highly  probable  that 
it  would  rest  in  the  notion  of  an  eternal  succession  of  causes  and  effects. 
rather  than  acquire  the  ideas  of  creation,  in  the  proper  sense,  and  of  a 
supreme  Creator.  Scarcely  any  of  the  philosophers  of  the  most  in- 
quisitive ages  of  Greece,  or  those  of  their  followers  at  Rome,  though 
with  the  advantage  of  traditions  conveying  the  knowledge  of  God,  seem 
to  have  been  capable  of  conceiving  of  creation  out  of  nothing,  (Vide 
part  i,  c.  iv,)  and  they  consequently  admitted  the  eternity  of  matter. 
This  was  equally  the  case  with  the  Theistical,  the  Atheistical,  and  the 

Vol.  I.  18 


274  THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES.  [PART 

polytheistical  philosophers.  (8)  It  was  not  among  them  a  subject  of 
dispute ;  but  taken  for  a  point  settled  and  not  to  be  contradicted,  that 
matter  was  eternal,  and  could  not  therefore  be  created.  Against  this 
notion,  since  the  revelation  of  truth  to  man,  philosophy  has  been  able  to 
adduce  a  very  satisfactory  argument ;  but,  though  it  is  not  a  very 
recondite  one,  it  was  never  discovered  by  philosophy  while  unaided  by 
the  Scriptures.  In  like  manner  philosophy  can  now  furnish  cogent 
arguments  against  an  infinite  succession  of  causes  and  effects ;  but  it 
does  not  appear  probable  that  they  could  have  been  apprehended  by 
those  to  whom  the  very  notion  of  a  First  Cause  had  not  been  intimated. 
If  however  it  were  conceded,  that  some  glimmering  of  this  great  truth 
might,  by  induction,  have  been  discovered  by  contemplative  minds  thus 
circumstanced ;  by  what  means  could  they  have  demonstrated  to  them- 
selves that  that  great  collection  of  bodies  which  we  call  the  world  had 
but  one  Creator ;  that  he  is  an  incorporeal  Spirit ;  that  he  is  eternal, 
self  existent,  immortal,  and  independent  ?  Certain  it  is,  that  the  argu- 
ment d  posteriori  does  not  of  itself  fully  confirm  all  these  conclusions  ; 
and  the  argument  a  priori,  when  directed  to  these  mysterious  points,  is 
not,  with  all  the  advantages  which  we  enjoy,  so  satisfactory,  as  to  leave 
no  rational  ground  of  doubt  as  to  its  conclusiveness.  No  sober  man,  we 
apprehend,  would  be  content  with  that  as  the  only  foundation  of  his 
faith  and  hope.  If  indeed  the  idea  of  God  were  innate,  as  some  have 
contended,  the  question  would  be  set  at  rest.  But  then  every  human 
being  would  be  in  possession  of  it.  Of  this  there  is  not  only  no  proof  at 
all,  but  the  evidence  of  fact  is  against  it ;  and  the  doctrine  of  innate  ideas 
may  with  confidence  be  pronounced  a  mere  theory,  assumed  to  support 
favourite  notions,  but  contradicted  by  all  experience.  We  are  all 
conscious  that  we  gain  the  knowledge  of  God  by  instruction ;  and  we 
observe,  that  in  proportion  to  the  want  of  instruction,  men  are  ignorant, 
as  of  other  things,  so  of  God.  Peter,  the  wild  boy,  who  in  the  begin- 
ning of  the  last  century,  was  found  in  a  wood  in  Germany,  far  from 
having  any  innate  sense  of  God  or  religion,  seemed  to  be  incapable  of 
instruction ;  and  the  aboriginal  inhabitants  of  New  Holland  are  found, 
to  this  day,  in  a  state  of  knowledge  but  little  superior,  and  certainly  have 
no  idea  of  the  existence  of  one  supreme  Creator. 

It  is  therefore  to  be  concluded,  that  we  owe  the  knowledge  of  the 
existence  of  God,  and  of  his  attributes,  to  revelation  alone ;  but,  being 
now  discovered,  the  rational  evidence  of  both  is  copious  and  irresisti- 

(8)  "  Few,  if  any,  of  the  ancient  pagan  philosophers  acknowledged  God  to  be, 
in  the  most  proper  sense,  the  Creator  of  the  world.  By  calling  him  A»/*ispyos, 
•  the  Maker  of  the  world,'  they  did  not  mean,  that  he  brought  it  out  of  non- 
existence into  being ;  but  only  that  he  built  it  out  of  pre-existent  materials,  ami 
disposed  it  into  a  regular  form  and  order."  See  ample  proofs  and  illustrations  in 
e.  13,  part  i,  of  Leland's  Necessity  of  Revelation. 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES.  275 

ble  ;  (9)  so  much  so,  that  Atheism  has  never  been  able  to  make  much 
progress  among  mankind  where  this  revelation  has  been  preserved.  It 
is  resisted  by  demonstrations  too  numerous,  obvious,  and  convincing  ;  and 
is  itself  too  easily  proved  to  involve  the  most  revolting  absurdities. 

No  subject  has  employed  the  thoughts  and  pens  of  the  most  profound 
thinkers  more  than  the  demonstration  of  the  being  and  attributes  of 
God ;  and  the  evidence  from  fact,  reason,  and  the  nature  of  things, 
which  has  been  collected,  is  large  and  instructive.  These  researches 
'lave  not  however  brought  to  light  any  new  attribute  of  God  not  found 
m  Scripture.  This  is  a  strong  presumption  that  the  only  source  of  our 
notions  on  this  subject  is  the  manifestation  which  God  has  been  pleased 
i©  make  of  himself,  and  a  confirmation  that  human  reason,  if  left  to  itself, 
had  never  made  the  slightest  discovery  respecting  the  Divine  nature. — 
But  as  to  what  is  revealed,  they  are  of  great  importance  in  the  contro- 
?crsy  with  polytheism,  and  with  that  still  more  unnatural  and  monstrous 
perversion,  the  philosophy  which  denies  a  God. 

Demonstrations  both  a  priori  and  a  posteriori,  the  former  beginning 
with  the  cause,  the  latter  with  the  effect,  have  been  attempted,  not  only 
of  the  being,  but  also  of  all  the  attributes  ascribed  to  God  in  the  Holy 
Scriptures.  On  each  we  shall  offer  some  observations  and  illustrations, 
taking  the  argument  a  posteriori  first,  both  because,  as  to  the  simple 
question  of  the  being  of  a  God,  it  is  the  only  satisfactory  and  convincing 
proof;  and  especially,  because  it  is  that  only  to  which  the  Scriptures 
themselves  refer  us.  "  The  heavens  declare  the  glory  of  God,  and  the 
firmament  shoirelh  his  fiandy  work."  "  For  the  invisible  things  of  him 
from  the  creation  of  the  world  are  clearly  seen,  being  understood  by  the 
things  Uutt  are  made,  even  his  eternal  power  and  Godhead."  "  For  by 
the  greatness  and  beauty  of  the  creatures  proportionably  the  Maker  of 
them  is  seen." 

~  Nature,  as  one  justly  observes,  proceeds  from  causes  to  effects ;  but 
the  most  certain  and  successful  investigations  of  man,  proceed  from 
effects  to  causes,  and  this  is  the  character  of  what  logicians  have  called 
the  argument  a  posteriori. 

In  philosophy  it  has  been  laid  down  as  an  axiom,  "  that  no  event  or 
change  comes  to  pass  merely  of  itself,  but  that  every  change  stands 
related  to  and  implies  the  existence  and  influence  of  something  else,  in 
consequence  of  which  such  change  comes  to  pass,  and  which  may  be 
regarded  as  the  principle,  beginning,  or  source  of  the  change  referred 

(9) "  Tell  men  there  is  a  God,  and  their  mind  embraces  it  as  a  necessary 
truth ;  unfold  his  attributes,  and  they  will  see  the  explanation  of  them  in  his 
works.  When  the  foundation  is  laid  sure  and  firm  that  there  is  a  God,  and  his 
will  the  cause  of  all  things,  and  nothing  made  but  by  his  special  appointment 
and  command,  then  the  order  of  beings  will  fill  their  minds  with  a  due  sense  of 
the  Divine  Majesty,  and  they  may  be  made  a  scale  to  raise  juster  conceptions  <f 
what  is  immortal  and  invisible."     (Ellis's  Knowledge  of  Divine  Things.) 


276  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

to  it.  Accordingly  the  term  cause  is  usually  employed  to  denote  the 
supposed  principle  of  change;  and  the  term  effect  is  applied  to  the 
change  considered  in  relation  to  the  principle  of  change  whence  it 
proceeded.  This  axiom  or  principle  is  usually  thus  expressed  : — "  For 
every  effect  there  must  be  a  cause."  "Nothing  exists  or  comes  to 
pass  without  a  cause."  "  Nihil  turpius  philosopho  quam  fieri  sine  causa 
quicquam  dicere." 

Rooted  as  this  principle  is  in  the  common  sense,  and  the  common 
observation  and  experience  of  mankind,  it  is  assailed  in  the  metaphysi- 
cal  Atheism  of  Hume,  who  appears  to  have  borrowed  his  argument 
from  the  no  less  skeptical  Hobbes,  and  the  relation  of  cause  and  effect 
has  in  consequence  been  the  subject  of  considerable  controversy. 

Causes  have  been  distributed  by  logicians  into  efficient,  material, 
final,  and  formal.  Efficient  causes  are  the  agents  that  produce  certain 
effects ;  material  causes  are  the  subjects  on  which  the  agent  performs 
his  operation  ;  or  those  contingent  natures  which  lie  within  the  reach  of 
the  agent  to  influence.  Final  causes  are  the  motives  or  purposes, 
which  move  to  action,  or  the  end  for  which  any  thing  is  done.  Formal 
causes  denote  the  changes  resulting  from  the  operation  of  the  agent ; 
or  that  which  determines  a  thing  to  be  what  it  is,  and  distinguishes  it 
from  every  thing  else. 

It  is  with  efficient  causes  as  understood  in  the  above  distribution,  that 
we  are  principally  concerned.  Mr.  Hume  and  his  followers  have  laid 
it  down,  that  there  is  no  instance  in  which  we  are  able  to  perceive  a 
necessary  connection  between  two  successive  events ;  or  to  compre- 
hend in  what  manner  the  one  proceeds  from  the  other,  as  its  cause. — 
From  experience,  they  observe,  indeed  we  learn,  that  there  are  many 
events,  which  are  constantly  conjoined,  so  that  the  one  invariably  fol- 
lows the  other;  but  it  is  possible,  for  any  thing  we  know  to  the  con- 
trary, that  this  connection,  though  a  constant  one,  as  far  as  our  obser- 
vation has  reached,  may  not  be  a  necessary  connection ;  nay,  it  is 
possible,  that  there  may  be  no  necessary  connections  among  any  of  the 
phenomena  we  see,  and  if  there  be  any  such  connections  existing,  we. 
may  rest  assured  that  we  shall  never  be  able  to  discover  them.  This 
doctrine  has  however  been  admitted  by  many  who  not  only  deny  the 
skeptical  conclusions  which  Hobbes  and  Hume  deduced  from  it,  but 
who  contend  that  it  leads  to  a  directly  contrary  conclusion.  "  The 
fallacy  of  this  part  of  Mr.  Hume's  system,"  says  Professor  Stewart, 
"  does  not  consist  in  his  premises,  but  in  the  conclusion  which  he  draws 
from  them.  The  word  cause  is  used,  both  by  philosophers  and  the 
vulgar,  in  two  senses,  which  are  widely  different.  When  it  is  said, 
that  every  change  in  nature  indicates  the  operation  of  a  cause ;  the 
word  cause  expresses  something  which  is  supposed  to  be  necessarily 
connected  with  the  change,  and  without  which  it  could  not  have  hap- 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL     INSTITUTES.  277 

pened.  This  may  be  called  the  metaphysical  meaning  of  the  word ; 
and  such  causes  may  be  called  metaphysical  or  efficient  causes.  In 
natural  philosophy,  however,  when  we  speak  of  one  thing  being  the 
cause  of  another,  all  that  we  mean  is,  that  the  two  are  constantly  con- 
joined ;  so  that  when  we  see  the  one,  we  may  expect  the  other. — 
These  conjunctions  we  learn  from  experience  alone ;  and  without  an 
acquaintance  with  them,  we  could  not  accommodate  our  conduct  to  the 
established  course  of  nature.  The  causes  which  are  the  objects  of  our 
investigation  in  natural  philosophy,  may,  for  the  sake  of  distinction,  be 
called  physical  causes."  {Elements  of  the  Philosophy  of  the  Human 
Mind.)  By  this  distinction  and  concession  all  that  is  skeptical  and 
Atheistic,  in  Hume's  doctrine,  is  indeed  completely  refuted  ;  for  if  meta- 
physical or  efficient  causes  be  allowed,  and  also  that  "power,  force, 
energy,  and  causation,  are  to  be  regarded  as  attributes  of  mind,  and  can 
exist  in  mind  only,"  {Elements  of  the  Philosophy  of  the  Human  JVlind,) 
it  is  of  little  consequence  to  the  argument  as  to  the  existence  of  a 
supreme  First  Cause,  whether  the  constant  succession  of  events  among 
physical  causes,  has  a  necessary  connection  or  not ;  or  in  other  words, 
whether  what  is  purely  material  can  have  the  attribute  of  causation. — 
The  writer  we  have  just  quoted,  thinks  that  this,  doctrine  is  "  more 
favourable  to  Theism,  than  even  the  common  notions  upon  this  sub- 
ject ;" — "  if  at  the  same  time  we  admit  the  authority  of  that  principle 
of  the  mind,  which  leads  us  to  refer  every  change  to  an  efficient  cause," 
— "  as  it  keeps  the  Deity  always  in  view,  not  only  as  the  first,  but  as 
the  constantly  operating,  efficient  cause  in  nature,  and  as  the  great  con- 
necting principle  among  all  the  various  phenomena  which  we  observe." 
{Elements  of  the  Philosophy  of  the  Human  Mind.)  This  author  still 
farther  thinks,  that  Mr.  Hume  has  undesignedly  furnished  an  antidote 
by  this  error  to  Spinozism  itself.  "  Mr.  Hume's  doctrine,  in  the  unqua- 
lified form  in  which  he  states  it,  may  lead  to  other  consequences  not 
less  dangerous  ;  but  if  he  had  not  the  good  fortune  to  conduct  metaphy- 
sicians to  the  truth,  he  may  at  least  be  allowed  the  merit  of  having  shut 
up  for  ever  one  of  the  most  frequented  and  fatal  paths  which  led  them 
astray," — "  the  cardinal  principle  on  which  the  whole  system  of  Spinoza 
turns,  being  that  all  events,  physical  and  moral,  are  necessarily  linked 
together  as  causes  and  effects."  {Dissertation  prefixed  to  the  Supplement 
of  the  Encyclo.  Britt.) 

When  the  doctrine  is  thus  restricted  to  physical  causes,  its  daugerous 
tendency  is  greatly  weakened,  if  not  altogether  neutralized ;  yet,  not- 
withstanding the  authority  with  which  it  has  been  supported,  it  may  be 
suspected  that  it  is  radically  unsound,  and  that  it  leads  to  consequences 
very  contradictory  to  the  experience  of  mankind,  or,  at  best,  that  it  is 
rather  a  philosophical  paradox  or  quibble,  than  a  philosophic  discovery. 
What  are  called  above  metaphysical  or  efficient  causes  are  admitted,  with 


278  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

respect  to  mind,  of  which' il  power,  force,  energy  and  causation,  are  attri- 
butes." "  One  kindofcause,namely,whataman,  or  any  other  living  being, 
is  to  his  own  voluntary  actions,  or  to  those  changes  which  he  produces 
directly  in  himself,  and  indirectly  in  himself,  by  the  occasional  exertion  of 
his  own  power,"  says  Dr.  Gregory,  {Literary  and  Philosophical  Essays,) 
"  may  be  called  for  distinction's  sake  an  agent.       That  there  are  such 
agents,  and  that  many  events  are  to  be  referred  to  them,  as  either  wholly 
or  partly  their  causes  or  principles  of  change,  is  not  only  certain  but  even 
self  evident."      We   are  all  conscious   of  power  to    produce  certain 
effects,  and  we  are  sure  that  there  is  between  this  cause  and  the  effect 
produced,  more  than  a  mere  relation  of  antecedence  and  sequence,  for 
we  are  conscious  not  only  of  designing  to  produce  the  effect,  but  of  the 
exertion  of  power,  though  we  do  not  always  know  the  medium  by  which 
the  power  acts  upon  the  object,  as  when  we  move  the  hand  or  the  foot 
voluntarily,  nor  the  mode  in  which  the  exerted  energy  connects  itself 
with  the  result.     Yet  the  result  follows  the  will,  and  however  often  this 
is  repeated,  it  is  still  the  same.      The  relations  between  physical  causes 
and  effects  must  be  different  from  this  ;  but  if  according  to  the  doctrine 
of  Hume  it  were  only  a  relation  of  succession,  the  following  absurdities, 
as  stated  by  Dr.  Reid,  (Reid's  Essays,)  would  inevitably  follow — "night 
would  be  the  cause  of  day,  and  day  the  cause  of  night ;  for  no  two 
things  have  more  constantly  followed  each  other  since  the  beginning  of 
the  world.     Any  thing,  for  what  we   know,  may  be  the  cause  of  any 
thing,  since  nothing  is  essential  to  a  cause  but  its  being  constantly  fol- 
lowed by  the  effect :  what  is  unintelligent  may  be  the  cause  of  what  is 
intelligent ;   folly  may  be  the  cause  of  wisdom,  and  evil  of  good ;  and 
thus  all  reasoning  from  the  effect  to  the  nature  of  the  cause,  and  all  rea- 
soning from  final  causes,  must  be   given  up  as  fallacious."     Physical 
causes,  as  for  example,  what  impulse  is  to  motion,  heat  to  expansion, 
fusion,  and  evaporation ;  the  earth  to  the  fall  of  a  stone  toward  it ; 
the  sun  and  moon  to  the  tides ;  express  a  relation  different  from  that 
between  man  and  any  of  his  voluntary  actions ;  but  it  cannot  be  the 
same  as  the  relation  of  priority  and  succession  among  things  or  events. 
Men  have  been  mistaken,  in  some  cases,  in  taking  the  circumstances  of 
the  succession  of  one  event  to  another  as  a  proof  of  their  relation  as 
cause  and  effect ;  but  even  that  shows  that,  in  the  fixed  opinion  of 
mankind,  constant  succession,   when   there   is    an   appearance  of  the 
dependence  of  one  thing  upon  another,  implies  more  than  mere  succes- 
sion, and  that  what  is  considered  as  the  cause  has  an  efficiency  either 
from  itself  or  by  derivation,  by  which  the  effect  is  brought  to  pass.     It 
is  truly  observed  by  Dr.  Brown,  {Procedure,  fyc,  of  the  Human  Under- 
standing,) "  We  find  by  observation  and  experience  that  such  and  such 
effects  are  produced ;  but  when  we  attempt  to  think  of  the  reason  why, 
and  the  manner  how  the  causes  work  those  effects,  then  we  are  at  a 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES.  279 

stand,  and  all  our  reasoning  is  precarious,  or  at  best  but  probable  con- 
jecture." From  hence  however  it  would  be  a  ridiculous  conclusion, 
that  because  we  are  ignorant  of  the  manner  in  which  physical  causes 
act,  they  do  not  act  at  all ;  or  that  none  such  exist  in  the  ordinarily 
received  sense ;  that  is,  that  the  effect  is  not  dependent  upon  what  is 
called  the  cause,  and  that  the  presence  of  the  latter,  according  to  the 
established  laws  of  nature,  is  not  necessary  to  the  effect,  so  that  without 
it  the  effect  would  not  follow.  The  efficient  cause  may  be  latent,  but 
the  physical  cause  is  that  through  which  it  operates,  and  must  be  sup- 
posed to  have  an  adaptation  to  convey  the  power,  so  to  speak,  in  some 
precise  mode,  by  mechanical  or  other  means,  to  the  result,  or  there 
could  neither  be  ingenuity  and  contrivance  in  the  works  of  art,  nor  wis- 
dom in  the  creation.  A  watch  might  indicate  the  hour  without  wheels, 
and  a  clod  might  give  as  copious  a  light  to  the  planetary  system  as  the 
sun.  If  the  doctrine  of  Hume  denies  efficient  causes,  it  contradicts  all 
consciousness  and  the  experience  founded  upon  it ;  if  it  applies  only  to 
physical  causes,  it  either  confounds  them  with  efficient  causes,  or  says 
in  paradoxical  language,  only  what  has  been  better  said  by  others,  and 
that  without  any  danger  of  involving  either  absurd  or  dangerous  conse- 
quences. "  When  an  event  is  produced  according  to  a  known  law  of 
nature,  the  law  of  nature  is  called  the  cause  of  that  event.  But  a  law 
of  nature  is  not  the  efficient  cause  of  a;iy  event ;  it  is  only  the  rule 
according  to  which  the  efficient  cause  acts.  A  law  is  a  thing  con- 
ceived in  the  mind  of  a  rational  being,  not  a  thing  which  has  a  real 
existence,  and  therefore  like  a  motive,  it  can  neither  act  nor  be  acted 
upon,  and  consequently  cannot  be  an  efficient  cause.  If  there  be 
no  being  that  acts  according  to  that  law,  it  produces  no  effect."  (Reid's 
Essays.)  "All  things  that  are  done  in  the  world,  are  done  immediately 
by  God  himself,  or  by  created  intelligent  beings  ;  matter  being  evidently 
not  at  all  capable  of  any  laws  or  powers  whatever,  any  more  than  it  is 
capable  of  intelligence ;  excepting  only  this  orle  negative  power,  that 
every  part  of  it  will,  of  itself,  always  and  necessarily  continue  in  that 
state,  whether  of  rest  or  motion,  wherein  it  at  present  is.  So  that  all 
those  things  which  we  commonly  say  are  the  effects  of  the  natural 
powers  of  matter  and  laws  of  motion,  of  gravitation,  attraction,  or  the 
like,  are  indeed,  (if  we  will  speak  strictly  and  properly,)  the  effects  of 
God's  acting  upon  matter  continually,  and  every  moment,  either  immedi- 
ately by  himself,  or  mediately  by  some  created  intelligent  beings.  Conse- 
quently there  is  no  such  thing  as  what  men  commonly  call  the  course 
of  nature,  or  the  powers  of  nature.  The  course  of  nature,  truly  and 
properly  speaking,  is  nothing  else  but  the  will  of  God  producing  certain 
effects  in  a  continued,  regular,  constant,  and  uniform  manner."  (Dr. 
Samuel  Clarke.) 

The  true  state  of  the  case  appears  to  be,  1   That  there  are  efficient 


280  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

causes,  and  that  the  relation  between  them  and  their  effects  is  necessary, 
since,  without  the  operation  of  the  efficient,  the  effect  would  not  take 
place.  This  we  find  in  ourselves,  and  we  proceed  therefore  upon  the 
surest  ground  when  we  ascribe  effects  which  are  above  human  power, 
to  a  causation  which  is  more  than  human,  and,  in  the  case  of  the  phe- 
nomena of  universal  nature,  to  a  Divine  cause,  or  in  other  words  to  God. 
2.  That  there  are  physical  causes,  between  which  and  their  effects  there 
is  a  relation  or  connection  very  different  to  that  of  a  mere  order  of  sue- 
cession,  which  in  fact  is  a  relation  which  entirely  excludes  the  idea  of 
causation  in  any  sense.  According  to  the  present  established  order  of 
nature,  this  also  may  be  termed  a  necessary  connection,  although  not 
necessary  in  the  sense  of  its  being  the  only  method  by  which  the  infinite 
and  first  efficient  could  produce  the  effect.  His  resources  are  doubtless 
boundless  ;  but  having  established  a  certain  order  in  nature,  or,  in  other 
words,  having  given  certain  powers  and  properties  to  matter,  with 
reference  to  a  mutual  operation  of  different  bodies  upon  each  other,  his 
supreme  efficiency,  his  causing  power,  takes  its  direction,  and  displays 
itself  in  this  order,  and  is  modified  by  the  pre-established  and  constantly 
upheld  properties  through  and  by  which  it  operates.  So  far,  and  in  this 
sense,  the  relation  between  physical  causes  and  effects  is  a  necessary 
one,  and  the  doctrine  of  final  causes  is  thus  established  by  those  wondrous 
arrangements  and  adaptations  in  the  different  parts  of  nature,  and  in 
individual  bodies,which  carry  on,  and  conduct  the  ever-acting  efficiency 
of  God  to  those  wise  and  benevolent  ends  which  he  has  proposed. 
Thus  the  sun,  by  virtue  of  a  previously  established  adaptation  between 
its  own  qualities,  the  earth's  atmosphere  and  the  human  eye,  is  the 
necessary  cause  of  light  and  vision,  though  the  true  efficient  be  the  Crea- 
tor himself,  ever  present  to  his  own  arrangements ;  as  the  spring  of  a 
watch  is  the  necessary  cause  of  the  motion  of  the  wheels  and  indices 
though  the  efficient,  in  the  proper  sense,  is  the  artist  himself  who  framed 
the  whole.  In  these  cases  there  is,  however,  this  difference  to  be  ob- 
served, though  it  affects  not  the  argument  of  a  secondary  physical  causa- 
tion, that  the  maker  of  a  watch,  finding  certain  bodies,  endued  with 
certain  primary  properties,  may  array  them  one  against  the  other,  and 
so  leave  his  work  to  go  on  without  his  constant  impulse  and  interposition  ; 
but  in  nature,  the  primary  properties  of  matter,  and  its  existence  itself  are 
derived  and  dependent,  and  need  the  constant  upholding  of  Him  who  spake 
them  out  of  nothing,  and  "  by  whom  they  all  consist." 

The  relation  of  cause  and  effect  according  to  the  common  sense 
und  observation  of  mankind,  being  thus  established,  (1)  we  proceed  to 
the  arguments  which  are  founded  upon  it. 

(1)  The  language  of  every  nation  is  formed  on  the  connection  between  cause 
and  effect.  For  in  every  language  there  are  not  only  many  words  directly  ex- 
pressing ideas  of  this  subject,  such  as  cause,  efficiency,  effect,  production,  produce. 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  281 

The  existence  of  God,  once  communicated  to  us  by  his  own  revela- 
tion, direct  or  traditional,  is  capable  of  ample  proof,  and  receives  au 
irresistible  corroborative  evidence,  a  posteriori. 

An  argument  a,  priori,  is  an  argument  from  something  antecedent  to 
something  consequent ;  from  principle  to  corollary ;  from  cause  to  effect. 
An  argument  a  posteriori,  on  the  contrary,  is  an  argument  from  consequent 
to  antecedent,  from  effect  to  cause.  Both  these  kinds  of  proof  have  been 
resorted  to  in  support  of  the  doctrine  of  the  existence  of  God ;  but  it  is 
on  the  latter  only  that  any  dependence  can  be  placed,  and  the  demonstra- 
tion is  too  strong  to  need  a  doubtful  auxiliary. 

The  first  argument,  a  posteriori,  for  the  existence  of  a  God,  is  drawn 
from  our  own  actual  existence,  and  that  of  other  beings  around  us. 
This,  by  an  obvious  error,  has  sometimes  been  called  an  argument  a 
priori ;  but  if  our  existence  is  made  use  of  to  prove  the  existence  of  a 
supreme  Creator,  it  is  unquestionably  an  argument  which  proceeds  from 
consequent  to  antecedent,  from  effect  to  cause.  This  ancient,  and 
obvious  demonstration  has  been  placed  in  different  views  by  different 
writers.  Locke  has,  in  substance,  thus  stated  it.  Every  man  knows 
with  absolute  certainty,  that  he  himself  exists.  He  knows  also  that  he 
did  not  always  exist,  but  began  to  be.  It  is  clearly  certain  to  him,  that 
his  existence  was  caused  and  not  fortuitous,  and  was  produced  by  a  cause 
adequate  to  the  production.  By  an  adequate  cause,  is  invariably 
intended,  a  cause  possessing  and  exerting  an  efficacy  sufficient  to  bring 
any  effect  to  pass.  In  the  present  case,  an  adequate  cause  is  one  possess- 
ing, and  exerting  all  the  understanding  necessary  to  contrive,  and  the 
power  necessary  to  create,  such  a  being  as  the  man  in  question.  This 
cause  is  what  we  are  accustomed  to  call  God.  The  understanding 
necessary  to  contrive,  and  the  power  necessary  to  create  a  being  com- 
pounded of  the  human  soul  and  body,  admit  of  no  limits.  He  who  can 
contrive  and  create  such  a  being,  can  contrive  and  create  any  thing. 
He  who  actually  contrived  and  created  man,  certainly  contrived  and 
created  all  things. 

The  same  argument  is  given  more  copiously,  but  with  great  clearness, 
by  Mr.  Howe  : — 

"  We  therefore  begin  with  God's  existence  ;  for  the  evincing  of  which, 

effectuate,  create,  generate,  &c,  or  words  equivalent  to  these ;  but  every  verb 
in  every  language,  except  the  intransitive  impersonal  verbs,  and  the  verb  substan- 
tive, involves,  of  course,  causation  or  efficiency,  and  refers  always  to  an  agent,  or 
cause,  in  such  a  manner,  that  without  the  operation  of  this  cause  or  agent,  the 
verb  would  have  no  meaning. — All  mankind,  except  a  few  Atheistical  and  skepti- 
cal philosophers,  have  thus  agreed  in  acknowledging  this  connection,  and  they 
have  acknowledged  it  as  fully  as  others  in  their  customary  language.  They  have 
spoken  exactly  as  other  men  speak,  and  the  connection  between  cause  and  effect 
is  as  often  declared  in  their  conversation  and  writings,  and  as  much  relied  on,  as 
in  those  of  other  men.   (Dwight's  Theology,  vol.  i,  p.  5.) 


282  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

we  may  be  most  assured,  First,  that  there  hath  been  somewhat  or  other 
from  all  eternity ;  or  that,  looking  backward,  somewhat  of  real  being 
must  be  confessed  eternal.  Let  such  as  have  not  been  used  to  think  of 
any  thing  more  than  what  they  could  see  with  their  eyes,  and  to  whom 
reasoning  only  seems  difficult  because  they  have  not  tried  what  they  can  do 
in  it,  but  use  their  thoughts  a  little,  and  by  moving  them  a  few  easy  steps, 
they  will  soon  find  themselves  as  sure  of  this  as  that  they  see,  or  hear, 
or  understand,  or  are  any  thing. 

"  For  being  sure  that  something  now  is,  (that  you  see,  for  instance,  or 
are  something,)  you  must  then  acknowledge,  that  certainly  something 
always  was,  and  hath  ever  been,  or  been  from  all  eternity  ;  or  else  you 
must  say,  that,  some  time,  nothing  was  ;  or  that  all  being  once  was  not. 
And  so,  since  you  find  that  something  now  is,  there  was  a  time  when  all 
being  did  begin  to  be  ;  that  is,  that  till  that  time  there  was  nothing  ;  but 
now,  at  that  time  something  first  began  to  be.  For  what  can  be  plainer 
than  that  if  all  being  some  time  was  not,  and  now  some  being  is,  every 
thing  of  being  had  a  beginning.  And  thence  it  would  follow,  that  some 
being,  that  is,  the  first  that  ever  began  to  be,  did  of  itself  start  up  out  of 
nothing,  or  made  itself  to  be  when  before  nothing  was. 

N  But  now,  do  you  not  plainly  see  that  it  is  altogether  impossible  any 
thing  should  do  so  ;  that  is,  when  it  was  as  yet  nothing,  and  when  nothing 
at  all  as  yet  was,  that  it  should  make  itself,  or  come  into  being  of  itself? 
For  surely  making  itself  is  doing  something.  But  can  that  which  is 
nothing  do  any  thing  ?  Unto  all  doing  there  must  be  some  doer.  Where- 
fore  a  thing  must  be  before  it  can  do  any  thing ;  and  therefore  it  would 
follow,  that  it  was  before  it  was  ;  or  was  and  was  not,  was  something  and 
nothing,  at  the  same  time.  Yea,  and  that  it  was  diverse  from  itself: 
for  a  cause  must  be  a  distinct  thing  from  that  which  is  caused  by  it. 
Wherefore  it  is  most  apparent,  that  some  being  hath  ever  been,  or  did 
never  begin  to  be. 

"  Whence,  farther,  it  is  also  evident,  Secondly,  that  some  being  was 
uncaused,  or  was  ever  of  itself  without  any  cause.  For  what  never  was 
from  another  had  never  any  cause,  since  nothing  could  be  its  own  cause. 
And  somewhat,  as  appears  from  what  hath  been  said,  never  was  from 
another.  Or  it  may  be  plainly  argued  thus  ;  that  either  some  being  was 
uncaused,  or  all  being  was  caused.  But  if  all  being  was  caused,  then 
some  one  at  least  was  the  cause  of  itself;  which  hath  been  already  shown 
impossible.  Therefore  the  expression  commonly  used  concerning  the 
first  being,  that  it  was  of  itself,  is  only  to  be  taken  negatively,  that  is,  that 
it  was  not  of  another  ;  not  positively,  as  if  it  did  some  time  make  itself. 
Or  what  there  is  positive  signified  by  that  form  of  speech,  is  only  to 
be  taken  thus,  that  it  was  a  being  of  that  nature,  as  that  it  was  impossible 
it  should  ever  not  have  been ;  not  that  it  did  ever  of  itself  step  out  of  not. 
being  into  being. 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  83 

"  And  now  it  is  hence  farther  evident,  Thirdly,  that  some  being  is 
independent  upon  any  other,  that  is,  whereas  it  already  appears  that 
some  being  did  never  depend  on  any  other,  as  a  productive  cause,  and 
was  not  beholden  to  any  other,  that  it  might  come  into  being ;  it  is 
thereupon  equally  evident  that  it  is  simply  independent,  or  cannot  be  be- 
holden  to  any  for  its  continued  being.  For  what  did  never  need  a 
productive  cause,  doth  as  little  need  a  sustaining  or  conserving  cause. 
And  to  make  this  more  plain,  either  some  being  is  independent,  or  all 
Deing  is  dependent.  But  there  is  nothing  without  the  compass  of  all 
being  whereon  it  may  depend.  Wherefore  to  say,  that  all  being  doth 
depend,  is  to  say,  it  depends  on  nothing,  that  is,  that  it  depends  not. 
For  to  depend  on  nothing,  is  not  to  depend.  It  is  therefore  a  manifest 
contradiction  to  say  that  all  being  doth  depend ;  against  which  it  is  no 
relief  to  urge,  that  all  beings  do  circularly  depend  on  one  another.  (2) 
For  so,  however  the  whole  circle  or  sphere  of  being  should  depend 'on 
nothing ;  or  one  at  last  depend  on  itself,  which  negatively  taken,  as  be- 
fore, is  true,  and  the  thing  we  contend  for — that  one,  the  common  sup- 
port of  all  the  rest,  depends  not  on  any  thing  without  itself. 

"  Whence  also  it  is  plainly  consequent,  Fourthly,  that  such  a  Being 
is  necessary,  or  doth  necessarily  exist :  that  is,  that  it  is  of  such  a  na- 
ture as  that  it  could  not  or  cannot  but  be.  For  what  is  in  being,  neither 
by  its  own  choice,  nor  any  other's,  is  necessarily.  But  what  was  not 
made  by  itself,  (which  hath  been  shown  to  be  impossible,)  nor  by  any 
other,  (as  it  hath  been  proved  something  was  not,)  it  is  manifest,  it 
neither  depended  on  its  choice,  nor  any  other's  that  it  is.  And  there- 
fore, its  existence  is  not  owing  to  choice  at  all,  but  to  the  necessity  of 
its  own  nature.  Wherefore  it  is  always  by  a  simple,  absolute,  natural 
necessity  ;  being  of  a  nature  to  which  it  is  altogether  repugnant  and 
impossible  ever  not  to  have  been,  or  ever  to  cease  from  being.  And 
now  having  gone  thus  far,  and  being  assured,  that  hitherto  we  feel  the 
ground  firm  under  us ;  that  is,  having  gained  a  full  certainty,  that  there 

(2)  The  notion  of  an  infinite  series  of  caused  and  successive  beings  is  absurd; 
for  of  this  infinite  series,  either  some  one  part  has  not  been  successive  to  any 
other,  or  else  all  the  several  parts  of  it  have  been  successive.  If  some  one  part 
of  it  was  not  successive,  then  it  had  a  first  part,  which  destroys  the  supposition 
of  its  infinity.  If  all  the  several  parts  of  it  have  been  successive,  then  have  they 
all  once  been  future  :  but  if  they  have  all  been  future,  a  time  may  be  conceived 
when  none  of  them  had  existence :  and  if  so,  then  it  follows,  either  that  all  the 
parts  and  consequently  the  whole  of  this  infinite  series  must  have  arisen  from 
nothing,  which  is  absurd ;  or  else,  that  there  must  be  something  in  the  whole, 
beside  what  is  contained  in  all  the  parts,  which  is  also  absurd.  See  Clarke's  De- 
monstration, and  Woolaston's  Religion  of  Nature.  "  A  chain,"  says  Dr.  Paley, 
"  composed  of  an  infinite  number  of  links  can  no  more  support  itself,  than  a 
chain  composed  of  a  finite  number  of  links.  If  we  increase  the  number  of  links 
from  ten  to  a  hundred,  and  from  a  hundred  to  a  thousand,  &c,  we  make  not  the 
smallest  approach,  we  observe  not  the  smallest  tendency  toward  self  support." 


284  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

is  an  eternal,  uncaused,  independent,  necessary  Being,  and  therefore 
actually  and  everlastingly  existing ;  we  may  advance  one  step  farther, 

"  And  with  equal  assurance  add,  Fifthly,  that  this  eternal,  independent, 
uncaused,  necessary  Being,  is  self  active  ;  that  is,  (which  is  at  present 
meant,)  not  such  as  acts  upon  itself,  but  that  which  hath  the  power  of 
acting  upon  other  things,  in  and  of  itself,  without  deriving  it  from  any 
other.  Or  at  least  that  there  is  such  a  Being  as  is  eternal,  uncaused, 
&c,  having  the  power  of  action  in  and  of  itself.  For  either  such  a 
Being  as  hath  been  already  evinced  is  of  itself  active  or  unactive,  or 
hath  the  power  of  action  of  itself  or  not.  If  we  will  say  the  latter,  let 
it  be  considered  what  we  say,  and  to  what  purpose  we  say  it. 

"  1.  We  are  to  weigh  what  it  is  we  affirm,  when  we  speak  of  an 
eternal,  uncaused,  independent,  necessary  Being,  which  is  of  itself  to- 
tally unactive,  or  destitute  of  any  active  power.  If  we  will  say  there 
is  some  such  thing,  we  will  confess,  when  we  have  called  it  something, 
it  is  a  very  silly,  despicable,  idle  something,  and  a  something,  (if  we 
look  upon  it  alone,)  as  good  as  nothing.  For  there  is  but  little  odds 
between  being  nothing,  and  being  able  to  do  nothing.  We  will  again 
confess,  eternity,  self  origination,  independency,  necessity  of  existence, 
to  be  very  great  and  highly  dignifying  attributes  ;  and  import  a  most 
inconceivable  excellency.  For  what  higher  glory  can  we  ascribe  to 
any  being,  than  to  acknowledge  it  to  have  been  from  eternity  of  itself,  (3) 
without  being  beholden  to  any  other,  and  to  be  such  as  that  it  can  be 
and  cannot  but  be  in  the  same  state,  self-subsisting,  and  self  sufficient  to 
all  eternity  ?  But  can  our  reason  either  direct  or  endure,  that  we  should 
so  incongruously  misplace  so  magnificent  attributes  as  these,  and  ascribe 
the  prime  glory  of  the  most  excellent  Being  unto  that  which  is  next  to 
nothing  1  But  if  any  in  the  meantime  will  be  so  inconsiderate  as  to  say 
this,  let  it 

"  2.  Be  considered  to  what  purpose  they  say  it.  Is  it  to  exclude  a 
necessary  self-active  Being  ?  But  it  can  signify  nothing  to  that  purpose. 
For  such  a  Being  they  will  be  forced  to  acknowledge,  let  them  do  what 
they  can  (beside  putting  out  their  own  eyes)  notwithstanding.  For 
why  do  they  acknowledge  any  necessary  being  at  all,  that  was  ever  of 
itself  ?  Is  it  not  because  they  cannot,  otherwise,  for  their  hearts,  tell 
how  it  was  ever  possible  that  any  thing  at  all  could  come  into  being  ? 

(3)  "We  will  acknowledge  an  impropriety  in  this  word,  and  its  conjugate, 
self  originate,  sometimes  hereafter  used :  which  yet  is  recompensed  by  their  con- 
veniency  ;  as  they  may  perhaps  find  who  shall  make  trial  how  to  express  the 
sense  intended  by  them  in  other  words.  And  they  are  used  without  suspicion, 
that  it  can  be  thought  they  are  meant  to  signify  as  if  God  ever  gave  original  to 
himself;  but  in  the  negative  sense,  that  he  never  received  it  from  any  other; 
yea,  and  that  he  is,  what  is  more  than  equivalent  to  his  being  self  caused ; 
namely,  a  Being  of  himself  so  excellent  as  not  to  need  or  be  capable  to  admit 
any  cause." 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES.  285 

But,  finding  that  something  is,  they  are  compelled  to  acknowledge  that 
something  hath  ever  been,  necessarily  and  of  itself.  No  other  account 
could  be  given  how  other  things  came  to  be.  But  what  ?  doth  it  signify 
any  thing  toward  the  giving  an  account  of  the  original  of  all  other 
things,  to  suppose  only  an  eternal,  pelf-subsisting,  unactive  Being  ?  Did 
that  cause  other  things  to  be  ?  Will  not  their  own  breath  choke  them 
if  they  attempt  to  utter  the  self-contradicting  words,  an  unactive  cause, 
which  is  efficient  or  the  author  of  any  thing  ?  And  do  they  not  see  they 
are  as  far  from  their  mark,  or  do  no  more  toward  the  assigning  an  ori- 
ginal to  all  other  things,  by  supposing  an  eternal,  unactive  being  only, 
than  if  they  supposed  none  at  all  ?  That  which  can  do  nothing,  can  no 
more  be  the  productive  cause  of  another,  than  that  which  is  nothing. 
Wherefore,  by  the  same  reason  that  hath  constrained  us  to  acknowledge 
an  eternal,  uncaused,  independent,  necessary  Being,  we  are  also  un- 
avoidably led  to  acknowledge  this  Being  to  be  self  active,  or  such  as 
hath  the  power  of  action  in  and  of  itself;  or  that  there  is  certainly  such 
a  Being,  who  is  the  cause  of  all  the  things  which  our  senses  tell  us  are 
existent  in  the  world. 

"  For  what  else  is  left  us  to  say  or  think  ?  Will  we  think  fit  to  say 
that  all  things  we  behold  were,  as  they  now  are,  necessarily  existent 
from  all  eternity  ?  That  were  to  speak  against  our  own  eyes,  which 
continually  behold  the  rise  and  fall  of  living  things,  of  whatsoever  sort 
or  kind,  that  can  come  under  their  notice.  For  all  the  things  we  be- 
hold are,  in  some  respect  or  other,  internally  or  externally,  continually 
changing,  and  therefore  could  never  long  be  beheld  as  they  are.  And 
to  say  then,  they  have  been  continually  changing  from  eternity,  and  yet 
have  been  necessarily,  is  unintelligible  and  flat  nonsense.  For  what  is 
necessarily,  is  always  the  same ;  and  what  is  in  this  or  that  posture 
necessarily,  (that  is,  by  an  intrinsic,  simple  and  absolute  necessity,  which 
must  be  here  meant,)  must  be  ever  so.  Wherefore  to  suppose  the  world 
in  this  or  that  state  necessarily,  and  yet  that  such  a  state  is  changeable, 
is  an  impossible  and  self-contradicting  supposition. 

"  But  now,  since  we  find  that  the  present  state  of  things  is  change- 
able, and  actually  changing,  and  that  what  is  changeable  is  not  neces- 
sarily, and  of  itself;  and  since  it  is  evident  that  there  is  some  necessary 
Being,  otherwise  nothing  could  ever  have  been  ;  and  that  without  action 
nothing  could  be  from  it ;  since  also  all  change  imports  somewhat  of 
passion,  and  all  passion  supposes  action  ;  and  all  action,  active  power ; 
and  active  power,  an  original  seat  or  subject,  which  is  self  active,  or 
hath  the  power  of  action  in  and  of  itself;  (for  there  could  be  no  deriva- 
tion of  it  from  that  which  hath  it  not,  and  no  first  derivation,  but  from 
that  which  hath  it  originally  of  itself;  and  a  first  derivation  there  must 
be,  since  all  things  that  are,  or  ever  have  been,  furnished  with  it,  and 
not  of  themselves,  must  either  immediately  or  mediately  have  derived  it 


286  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

from  that  which  had  it  of  itself;)  it  is  therefore  manifest  that  there  is  a 
necessary,  self-active  Being,  the  Cause  and  Author  of  this  perpetually 
variable  state  and  frame  of  things. 

"  And  hence,  since  we  can  frame  no  notion  of  life  which  self-active 
power  doth  not,  at  least,  comprehend,  (as  upon  trial  we  shall  find  that 
we  cannot,)  it  is  consequent,  Sixthly,  that  this  Being  is  also  originally 
vital,  and  the  root  of  all  vitality,  such  as  hath  life  in  or  of  itself,  and 
from  whence  it  is  propagated  to  every  other  living  thing."  (Living 
Temple.) 

The  self-existent,  eternal,  self-active,  and  vital  Being,  whose  necessary 
existence  has  thus  been  proved,  is  also  intelligent ;  of  which  the  demon- 
stration a  posteriori  is  large  and  convincing.  For  since  we  are  speak, 
ing  of  a  Being  who  is  himself  independent,  and  upon  whom  all  things 
depend ;  and  from  the  dependence  of  every  thing  we  see  around  us,  we 
necessarily  infer  a  cause  of  them,  whom  we  do  not  see,  but  who  must 
himself  be  independent,  and  from  whom  they  must  have  originated ; 
their  actual  existence,  and  their  being  upheld  and  sustained,  prove  his 
power,  and  their  arrangement,  rfnd  wise  and  evidently  intentional  dispo- 
sition, prove  also  his  intelligence. 

In  the  proposition  that  the  self-existent  and  original  cause  of  all  things 
must  be  an  intelligent  Being,  Dr.  Samuel  Clarke  justly  observes,  lies  the 
main  question  between  us  and  Atheists.  "  For  that  something  must  be 
self  existent,  and  that  that  which  is  self  existent  must  be  eternal  and  in- 
finite, and  the  original  cause  of  all  things,  will  not  bear  much  dispute. 
But  all  Atheists,  whether  they  hold  the  world  to  be  of  itself  eternal,  both 
as  to  matter  and  form,  or  whether  they  hold  the  matter  to  be  eternal, 
and  the  form  contingent,  or  whatever  hypothesis  they  frame,  have  al- 
ways asserted  and  must  maintain,  either  directly  or  indirectly,  that  the 
self-existent  Being  is  not  an  intelligent  Being ;  but  either  pure  inactive 
matter,  or  (which  in  other  words  is  the  very  same  thing,)  a  mere  neces- 
sary  agent.  For  a  mere  necessary  agent  must  of  necessity  either  be 
plainly  and  directly  in  the  grossest  sense  unintelligent,  which  was  the 
notion  of  the  ancient  Atheists  of  the  self-existent  Being ;  or  else  its  in- 
telligence, according  to  Spinoza  and  some  moderns,  must  be  wholly 
separate  from  any  power  of  will  and  choice,  which  in  respect  of  excel, 
lency  and  perfection,  or  indeed  to  any  common  sense,  is  the  very  same 
thing  as  no  intelligence  at  all.  Now  that  the  self-existent  Being  is  not 
such  a  blind  and  unintelligent  necessity,  but  in  the  most  proper  sense  an 
understanding  and  really  active  Being,  does  not  indeed  so  obviously  and 
directly  appear  to  us  by  considerations  a  priori  ;  but  d  posteriori  almost 
every  thing  in  the  world  demonstrates  to  us  this  great  truth,  and  affords 
undeniable  arguments  to  prove  that  the  world  and  all  things  therein  are 
the  effects  of  an  intelligent  and  knowing  Cause. 

"  And  1st.  Since  in  general  there  are  manifestly  in  things  various 


SECOND.!  THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES.  287 

kinds  of  powers,  and  very  different  excellencies  and  degrees  of  perfec- 
tion ;  it  must  needs  be,  that,  in  the  order  of  causes  and  effects,  the  cause 
must  always  be  more  excellent  than  the  effect :  and  consequently  the 
self-existent  Being,  whatever  that  be  supposed  to  be,  must  of  necessity 
(being  the  original  of  all  things)  contain  in  itself  the  sum  and  highest 
degree  of  all  the  perfections  of  all  things.  Not  because  that  which  is 
self  existent,  must  therefore  have  all  possible  perfections  :  (for  this, 
though  most  certainly  true  in  itself,  yet  cannot  be  so  easily  demonstrated 
a  priori ;)  but  because  it  is  impossible  that  any  effect  should  have  any 
perfection,  which  was  not  in  the  cause.  For  if  it  had,  then  that  perfec- 
tion would  be  caused  by  nothing ;  which  is  a  plain  contradiction.  Now 
an  unintelligent  being,  it  is  evident,  cannot  be  endued  with  all  the  perfec- 
tions of  all  things  in  the  world  ;  because  intelligence  is  one  of  those 
perfections.  All  things  therefore  cannot  arise  from  an  unintelligent 
original  :  and  consequently  the  self-existent  Being  must  of  necessity  be 
intelligent. 

"  There  is  no  possibility  for  an  Atheist  to  avoid  the  force  of  this  argu- 
ment any  other  way,  than  by  asserting  one  of  these  two  things  :  either 
that  there  is  no  intelligent  Being  at  all  in  the  universe ;  or  that  intelli- 
gence is  no  distinct  perfection,  but  merely  a  composition  of  figure  and 
motion,  as  colour  and  sounds  are  vulgarly  supposed  to  be.  Of  the 
former  of  these  assertions,  every  man's  own  consciousness  is  an  abund- 
ant confutation.  For  they  who  contend  that  beasts  are  mere  machines, 
have  yet  never  presumed  to  conjecture  that  men  are  so  too.  And 
that  the  latter  assertion  (in  which  the  main  strength  of  Atheism  lies)  is 
most  absurd  and  impossible,  shall  be  shown. 

"  For  since  in  men  in  particular  there  is  undeniably  that  power,  which 
we  call  thought,  intelligence,  consciousness,  perception  or  knowledge ; 
there  must  of  necessity  either  have  been  from  eternity  without  any 
original  cause  at  all,  an  infinite  succession  of  men,  whereof  no  one  has 
had  a  necessary,  but  every  one  a  dependent  and  communicated  being ; 
or  else  these  beings,  endued  with  perception  and  consciousness,  must  at 
some  time  or  other  have  arisen  purely  out  of  that  which  had  no  such 
quality  as  sense,  perception,  or  consciousness ;  or  else  they  must  have 
been  produced  by  some  intelligent  superior  Being.  There  never  was 
nor  can  be  any  Atheist  whatsoever,  that  can  deny  but  one  of  these  three 
suppositions  must  be  the  truth.  If,  therefore,  the  two  former  can  be 
proved  to  be  false  and  impossible,  the  latter  must  be  owned  to  be  de- 
monstrably true.  Now  that  the  first  is  impossible,  is  evident  from  what 
has  been  already  said.  And  that  the  second  is  likewise  impossible,  may 
be  thus  demonstrated  : — 

"  If  perception  or  intelligence  be  any  real  distinct  quality,  or  perfec- 
tion  ;  and  not  a  mere  effect  or  composition  of  unintelligent  figure  and 
motion  ;  then  beings  endued  with  perception  or  consciousness,  can  never 


288  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  fPART 

possibly  have  arisen  purely  out  of  that  which  itself  had  no  such  quality 
as  perception  or  consciousness  ;  because  nothing  can  ever  give  to  an- 
other any  perfection  which  it  hath  not  either  actually  in  itself,  or  at  least 
in  a  higher  degree.  This  is  very  evident ;  because,  if  any  thing  could 
give  to  another  any  perfection  which  it  has  not  itself,  that  perfection 
would  be  caused  absolutely  by  nothing ;  which  is  a  plain  contradiction. 
If  any  one  here  replies,  (as  Mr.  Gildon  has  done  in  a  letter  to  Mr. 
Blount,)  that  colours,  sounds,  tastes,  and  the  like,  arise  from  figure  and 
motion,  which  have  no  such  qualities  in  themselves ;  or  that  figure, 
divisibility,  mobility,  and  other  qualities  of  matter,  are  confessed  to  be 
given  from  God,  who  yet  cannot,  without  extreme  blasphemy,  be  said 
to  have  any  such  qualities  himself;  and  that  therefore  in  like  manner, 
perception  or  intelligence  may  arise  out  of  that  which  has  no  intelligence 
itself;  the  answer  is  very  easy:  First,  that  colours,  sounds,  tastes,  and 
the  like,  are  by  no  means  effects  arising  from  mere  figure  and  motion ; 
there  being  nothing  in  the  bodies  themselves,  the  objects  of  the  senses, 
that  has  any  manner  of  similitude  to  any  of  these  qualities  ;  but  they  are 
plainly  thoughts  or  modifications  of  the  mind  itself,  which  is  an  intelli- 
gent being ;  and  are  not  properly  caused,  but  only  occasioned,  by  the 
impressions  of  figure  and  motion.  Nor  will  it  at  all  help  an  Atheist  (as 
to  the  present  question)  though  we  should  here  make  for  him,  (that  we 
may  allow  him  the  greatest  possible  advantage,)  even  that  most  absurd 
supposition,  that  vhe  mind  itself  is  nothing  but  mere  matter,  and  not  at 
all  an  immaterial  substance.  For,  even  supposing  it  to  be  mere  matter, 
yet  he  must  needs  confess  it  to  be  such  matter,  as  is  endued  not  only 
with  figure  and  motion,  but  also  with  the  quality  of  intelligence  and  per- 
ception :  and  consequently,  as  to  the  present  question,  it  will  still  come  to 
the  same  thing ;  that  colours,  sounds,  and  the  like,  which  are  not  quali- 
ties of  unintelligent  bodies,  but  perceptions  of  mind,  can  no  more  be 
caused  by,  or  arise  from  mere  unintelligent  figure,  and  motion,  than 
colour  can  be  a  triangle,  or  sound  a  square,  or  something  be  caused  by 
nothing.  Secondly  ;  as  to  the  other  part  of  the  objection,  that  figure, 
divisibility,  mobility,  and  other  qualities  of  matter,  are  (as  we  ourselves 
acknowledge)  given  it  from  God,  who  yet  cannot,  without  extreme 
blasphemy,  be  said  to  have  any  such  qualities  himself ;  and  that,  there- 
fore, in  like  manner,  perception  or  intelligence  may  arise  out  of  that 
which  has  no  intelligence  itself;  the  answer  is  still  easier:  that  figure, 
divisibility,  mobility,  and  other  such  like  qualities  of  matter,  are  not  real, 
proper,  distinct,  and  positive  powers,  but  only  negative  qualities,  deficien- 
cies, or  imperfections.  And  though  no  cause  can  communicate  to  its 
effect  any  real  perfection  which  it  has  not  itself,  yet  the  effect  may  easily 
have  many  imperfections,  deficiencies,  or  negative  qualities,  which  are 
not  in  the  cause.  Though  therefore  figure,  divisibility,  mobility,  and 
the  like,  (which  are  mere  negations,  as  all  limitations,  and  all  defects  of 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  289 

powers  are,)  may  be  in  the  effect,  and  not  in  the  cause  ;  yet  intelligence, 
(which  I  now  suppose,  and  shall  prove  immediately,  to  be  a  distinct 
quality ;  and  which  no  man  can  say  is  a  mere  negation,)  cannot  pos- 
sibly be  so. 

"  Having  therefore  thus  demonstrated,  that  if  perception  or  intelligence 
be  supposed  to  be  a  distinct  quality  or  perfection,  (though  even  but  of 
matter  only,  if  the  Atheist  pleases,)  and  not  a  mere  effect  or  composi- 
tion of  unintelligent  figure  and  motion ;  then  beings  endued  with  per- 
ception or  consciousness  can  never  have  arisen  purely  out  of  that  which 
had  no  such  quality  as  perception  or  consciousness  ;  because  nothing  can- 
ever  give  to  another  any  perfection,  which  it  has  not  itself:  it  will  easily 
appear,  secondly,  that  perception  or  intelligence  is  really  such  a  distinct 
quality  or  perfection,  and  not  possibly  a  mere  effect  or  composition  of 
unintelligent  figure  and  motion  :  and  that  for  this  plain  reason,  because 
intelligence  is  not  figure,  and  consciousness  is  not  motion.  For  what- 
ever can  arise  from,  or  be  compounded  of  any  things,  is  still  only  those 
very  things  of  which  it  was  compounded.  And  if  infinite  compositions 
or  divisions  be  made  eternally,  the  things  will  be  but  eternally  the  same. 
And  all  their  possible  effects  can  never  be  any  thing  but  repetitions  of 
the  same.  For  instance  :  all  possible  changes,  compositions,  or  divi- 
sions of  figure,  are  still  nothing  but  figure:  and  all  possible  composi- 
tions or  effects  of  motion,  can  eternally  be  nothing  but  mere  motion.  If 
therefore  there  ever  was  a  time  when  there  was  nothing  in  the  universe 
but  matter  and  motion,  there  never  could  have  been  any  thing  else 
therein  but  matter  and  motion.  And  it  would  have  been  as  impossible, 
there  should  ever  have  existed  any  such  thing  as  intelligence  or  con- 
sciousness ;  or  even  any  such  thing  as  light,  or  heat,  or  sound,  or 
colour,  or  any  of  those  we  call  secondary  qualities  of  matter ;  as  it  is 
now  impossible  for  motion  to  be  blue  or  red,  or  for  a  triangle  to  be 
transformed  into  a  sound.  That  which  has  been  apt  to  deceive  men  in 
this  matter,  is  this,  that  they  imagine  compounds  to  be  somewhat  really 
different  from  that  of  which  they  are  compounded  :  which  is  a  very 
great  mistake.  For  all  the  things,  of  which  men  so  judge,  either,  if 
they  be  really  different,  are  not  compounds  nor  effects  of  what  men 
judge  them  to  be,  but  are  something  totally  distinct ;  as  when  the  vulgar 
think  colours  and  sounds  to  be  properties  inherent  in  bodies,  when  indeed 
they  are  purely  thoughts  of  the  mind :  or  else,  if  they  be  really  com- 
pounds and  effects,  then  they  are  not  different,  but  exactly  the  same 
that  ever  they  were  ;  as,  when  two  triangles  put  together  make  a  square, 
that  square  is  still  nothing  but  two  triangles ;  or  when  a  square  cut  in 
halves  makes  two  triangles,  those  two  triangles  are  still  only  the  two  halves 
of  a  square  ;  or  when  the  mixture  of  blue  and  yellow  powder  makes  a 
green,  that  green  is  still  nothing  but  blue  and  yellow  inlermixed,  as  is 
plainlv  visible  by  the  help  of  microscopes.  And  in  short,  every  thing 
Vol  I.  19 


290  THEOLOGICAL   INSTITUTES.  [PART 

by  composition,  division  or  motion,  is  nothing  else  but  the  very  same  it 
was  before,  taken  either  in  whole  or  in  parts,  or  in  different  place  or 
order.  He  therefore  that  will  affirm  intelligence  to  be  the  effect  of  a 
Bystem  of  unintelligent  matter  in  motion,  must  either  affirm  intelligence 
to  be  a  mere  name  or  external  denomination  of  certain  figures  and  mo- 
tions,  and  that  it  differs  from  unintelligent  figures  and  motions,  no  other- 
wise than  as  a  circle  or  triangle  differs  from  a  square,  which  is  evidently 
absurd :  or  else  he  must  suppose  it  to  be  a  real  distinct  quality,  arising 
from  certain  motions  of  a  system  of  matter  not  in  itself  intelligent ;  and 
then  this  no  less  evidently  absurd  consequence  would  follow,  that  one 
quality  inhered  in  another ;  for,  in  that  case,  not  the  substance  itself, 
the  particles  of  which  the  system  consists,  but  the  mere  mode,  the  par- 
ticular mode  of  motion  and  figure  would  be  intelligent. 

"  That  the  self  existent  and  original  cause  of  all  things,  is  an  intelli- 
gent Being,  appears  abundantly  from  the  excellent  variety,  order,  beauty, 
and  wonderful  contrivance,  and  fitness  of  all  things  in  the  world,  to 
their  proper  and  respective  ends.  Since  therefore  things  are  thus,  it 
must  unavoidably  be  granted,  (even  by  the  most  obstinate  Atheist,)  either 
that  all  plants  and  animals  are  originally  the  work  of  an  intelligent  Be- 
ing, and  created  by  him  in  time ;  or  that  having  been  from  eternity  in 
the  same  order  and  method  they  now  are  in,  they  are  an  eternal  effect 
of  an  eternal  intelligent  Cause  continually  exerting  his  infinite  power 
and  wisdom ;  or  else  that  without  any  self-existent  original  at  all,  they 
have  been  derived  one  from  another  in  an  eternal  succession,  by  an 
infinite  progress  of  dependent  causes.  The  first  of  these  three  ways  is, 
the  conclusion  we  assert :  the  second,  (so  far  as  the  cause  of  Atheism  is 
concerned,)  comes  to  the  very  same  thing  :  and  the  third  I  have  already 
shown  to  be  absolutely  impossible  and  a  contradiction. 

"  Supposing  it  was  possible  that  the  form  of  the  world,  and  all  the 
visible  things  contained  therein,  with  the  order,  beauty,  and  exquisite 
fitness  of  their  parts ;  nay,  supposing  that  even  intelligence  itself,  with 
consciousness  and  thought,  in  all  the  beings  we  know,  could  possibly  be 
the  result  or  effect  of  mere  unintelligent  matter,  figure,  and  motion  ; 
(which  is  the  most  unreasonable  and  impossible  supposition  in  the  world  ;) 
yet  even  still  there  would  remain  an  undeniable  demonstration,  that  the 
self-existent  Being,  (whatever  it  be  supposed  to  be,)  must  be  intelligent. 
For  even  these  principles  themselves,  unintelligent  figure  and  motion, 
could  never  have  possibly  existed,  without  there  had  been  before  them 
an  intelligent  cause.  I  instance  in  motion.  It  is  evident  there  is  now 
such  a  thing  as  motion  in  the  world  ;  which  either  began  at  some  time 
or  other,  or  was  eternal.  If  it  began  at  any  time,  then  the  question  is 
granted,  that  the  First  Cause  is  an  intelligent  being  :  for  mere  unintelli- 
gent matter,  and  that  at  rest,  it  is  manifest,  could  never  of  itself  begin  to 
move.     On  the  contrary,  if  motion  was  eternal,  it  was  either  eternally 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES.  291 

caused  by  some  eternal  intelligent  Being,  or  it  must  of  itself  be  neces- 
sary and  self  existent ;  or  else,  without  any  necessity  in  its  own  nature, 
and  without  any  external  necessary  cause,  it  must  have  existed  from 
eternity  by  an  endless  successive  communication.  If  motion  was  eter- 
nally caused  by  some  eternal  intelligent  Being ;  this  also  is  granting  the 
question  as  to  the  present  dispute.  If  it  was  of  itself  necessary  and  self 
existent ;  then  it  follows  that  it  must  be  a  contradiction  in  terms,  to  sup- 
pose any  matter  to  be  at  rest :  beside,  (as  there  is  no  end  of  absurdities,) 
it  must  also  imply  a  contradiction,  to  suppose  that  there  might  possibly 
have  been  originally  more  or  less  motion  in  the  universe  than  there 
actually  was:  which  is  so  very  absurd  a  consequence,  that  Spinoza 
himself,  though  he  expressly  asserts  all  things  to  be  necessary,  yet  seems 
ashamed  here  to  speak  out  his  opinion,  or  rather  plainly  contradicts 
himself  in  the  question  about  the  original  of  motion.  But  if  it  be  said, 
lastly,  that  motion,  without  any  necessity  in  its  own  nature,  and  without 
any  external  necessary  cause,  has  existed  from  eternity,  merely  by  an 
endless  successive  communication,  as  Spinoza,  inconsistency  enough, 
seems  to  assert ;  this  I  have  before  shown  to  be  a  plain  contradiction. 
It  remains  therefore  that  motion  must  of  necessity  be  originally  caused 
by  something  that  is  intelligent ;  or  else  there  never  could  have  been 
any  such  thing  as  motion  in  the  world.  And  consequently  the  self- 
existent  Being,  the  original  Cause  of  all  things,  (whatever  it  is  supposed 
to  be,)  must  of  necessity  be  an  intelligent  Being." 

The  argument  from  the  existence  of  motion  to  the  existence  of  an 
intelligent  "First  Cause  is  so  convincing,  that  the  farther  illustration  of  it, 
in  which  the  absurdities  of  Atheism  are  exhibited  in  another  view,  will 
not  be  unacceptable. 

"  Consider  that  all  this  motion  and  motive  power  must  have  some 
source  and  fountain  diverse  from  the  dull  and  sluggish  matter  moved 
thereby,  unto  which  it  already  hath  appeared  impossible  that  it  should 
originally  and  essentially  belong. 

««  Also  that  the  mighty  active  Being,  which  hath  been  proved  neces- 
sarily existent,  and  whereto  it  must  first  belong,  if  we  suppose  it  desti- 
tute of  the  self-moderating  principle  of  wisdom  and  counsel,  cannot  but 
be  always  exerting  its  motive  power,  invariably  used  to  the  same  degree, 
that  is,  to  its  very  utmost,  and  can  never  cease  or  fail  to  do  so.  For  its 
act  knows  no  limit  but  that  of  its  power,  (if  this  can  have  any,)  and  its 
power  is  essential  to  it,  and  its  essence  is  necessary. 

"  Farther,  that  the  motion  impressed  upon  the  matter  of  the  universe, 
must  hereupon  necessarily  have  received  a  continual  increase  ever  since 
it  came  into  being. 

"  That  supposing  this  motive  power  to  have  been  exerted  from  eter- 
nity, it  must  have  been  increased  long  ago  to  an  infinite  excess. 

«  That  hence  the  coalition  of  the  particles  of  matter  for  the  forming 


292  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

of  any  thing,  had  been  altogether  impossible :  for  let  us  suppose  this* 
exerted  motive  power  to  have  been,  any  instant,  but  barely  sufficient  for 
such  a  formation ;  because  that  could  not  be  despatched  in  an  instant,  it 
would,  by  its  continual  increase,  be  grown  so  over-sufficient,  as,  in  the 
next  instant,  to  dissipate  the  particles,  but  now  beginning  to  unite. 

**  At  least,  it  would  be  most  apparent,  that  if  ever  such  a  frame  of 
things  as  we  now  behold  could  have  been  produced,  that  motive  power, 
increased  to  so  infinite  an  excess,  must  have  shattered  the  whole  frame 
in  pieces,  many  an  age  ago,  or  rather  never  have  permitted  that  such  a 
thing  as  we  call  an  age  could  possibly  have  been. 

"  Our  experience  gives  us  not  to  observe  any  such  destructive  or 
remarkable  changes  in  the  course  of  nature,  and  this  indeed  (as  was 
long  ago  foretold)  is  the  great  argument  of  the  Atheistical  scoffers  in 
these  latter  days,  that  things  remain  as  they  were  from  the  beginning  of 
the  creation  to  this  day.  But  let  it  be  soberly  weighed,  how  it  is  pos, 
sible  that  the  general  consistency,  which  we  observe  in  things  through- 
out the  universe,  and  their  steady  orderly  posture,  can  stand  with  this 
momently  increase  of  motion. 

"  For  we  see  when  we  throw  a  stone  out  of  our  hand,  whatever  of 
the  impressed  force  it  imparts  to  the  air,  through  which  it  makes  its 
way,  or  whatever  degree  of  it  vanishes  of  itself,  it  yet  retains  a  part  a 
considerable  time,  which  carries  it  all  the  length  of  its  journey,  and 
does  not  vanish  and  die  away  on  the  sudden.  So  when  we  here  consider 
in  the  continual  momently  renewal  of  the  same  force,  always  necessa- 
rily going  forth  from  the  same  mighty  agent,  without  any  moderation  or 
restraint,  that  every  following  impetus  doth  so  immediately  overtake  the 
former,  that  whatever  we  can  suppose  lost,  is  yet  abundantly  over-sup- 
plied ;  upon  the  whole,  it  cannot  fail  to  be  ever  growing,  and  before  now 
must  have  grown  to  that,  all-destroying  excess  before  mentioned. 

"  It  is  therefore  evident,  that  as  without  the  supposition  of  a  self -active 
Being,  there  could  be  no  such  thing  as  motion,  so  without  the  supposi- 
tion of  an  intelligent  Being,  (that  is,  that  the  same  Being  be  both  self- 
active  and  intelligent,)  there  could  be  no  regular  motion,  such  as  is 
absolutely  necessary  to  the  forming  and  continuing  of  any  of  the  com- 
pacted bodily  substances,  which  our  eyes  behold  every  day  ;  yea,  or  of 
any  whatsoever,  suppose  we  their  figures,  their  shapes,  to  be  as  rude,  as 
deformed,  and  useless  as  we  can  imagine,  much  less  such  as  the  exqui, 
site  compositions,  and  the  exact  order  of  things  in  the  universe  do  evidently 
require  and  discover."  (Howe's  Living  Temple.) 

The  proof  that  the  original  cause  of  all  things  is  an  intelligent  Being, 
alluded  to  above  by  Dr.  S.  Clarke,  as  exhibited  by  the  excellent  variety, 
order,  beauty,  and  wonderful  contrivance  and  fitness  of  all  things  in  the 
world  to  their  proper  and  respective  ends,  has,  from  the  copious  and 
almost  infinite  illustration  of  which  it  is  capable,  been  made  a  distinct 


SEtOHD.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  293 

branch  of  theological  science.  It  is  the  most  obvious  and  popular,  and 
therefore  the  most  useful  argument  in  favour  of  the  intelligence  of  that 
Being  of  infinite  perfections,  we  call  God ;  it  is  that  to  which  the  Holy 
Scriptures  refer  us  for  the  confirmation  of  their  own  doctrine  on  this 
subject,  and  it  has  been  constantly  resorted  to  by  all  writers  on  this  first 
principle  of  religion  in  every  age.  When  it  has  been  considered  sepa- 
rately, and  the  proofs  from  nature  have  been  largely  given,  it  has  been 
designated  "  Natural  Theology,"  and  has  given  rise  to  many  important 
works,  equally  entertaining,  instructive,  and  convincing.  (4)  The  basis, 
and  indeed  the  plan,  of  Dr.  Paley's  Natural  Theology,  are  found  in  the 
third  and  following  chapters  of  Howe's  Living  Temple ;  but  the  outline 
has  been  filled  up,  and  the  subject  expanded  by  that  able  writer  with 
great  felicity  of  illustration,  and  acute  and  powerful  argument.  From 
the  platform  of  Paley's  work,  as  it  may  be  found  in  "  the  Living 
Temple,"  I  shall  give  a  few  extracts,  which,  though  they  appear  in  the 
"  Natural  Theology"  in  a  more  expansive  form,  strengthened  by  addi- 
tional examples,  and  clothed  in  some  of  the  instances  given  with  a  more 
correct  philosophy,  are  not  superseded.  They  bear  upon  the  conclusion 
with  an  irresistible  force,  and  are  expressed  with  a  noble  eloquence, 
though  in  language  a  little  antiquated  in  structure. 

"  As  nothing  can  be  produced  without  a  cause,  so  no  cause  can  work 
above  or  beyond  its  own  capacity  and  natural  aptitude.  Whatsoever 
therefore  is  ascribed  to  any  cause,  above  and  beyond  its  ability,  all  that 
surplusage  is  ascribed  to  no  cause  at  all :  and  so  an  effect,  in  that  part 
at  least,  were  supposed  without  a  cause.  And  if  it  then  follow  when  an 
effect  is  produced,  that  it  had  a  cause  ;  why  doth  it  not  equally  follow, 
when  an  effect  is  produced,  having  manifest  characters  of  wisdom  and 
design  upon  it,  that  it  had  a  wise  and  designing  cause  ?  If  it  be  said, 
there  are  some  fortuitous  or  casual  (at  least  undesigned)  productions, 
that  look  like  the  effects  of  wisdom  and  contrivance,  but  indeed  are  not, 
as  the  birds  so  orderly  and  seasonably  makiug  their  nests,  the  bees 
their  comb,  and  the  spider  its  web,  which  are  capable  of  no  design,  that 
exception  needs  to  be  well  proved  before  it  be  admitted  ;  and  that  it  be 
plainly  demonstrated,  both  that  these  creatures  are  not  capable  of  design, 
and  that  there  is  not  a  universal,  designing  cause,  from  whose  directive 
as  well  as  operative  influence,  no  imaginable  effect  or  event  can  be 
exempted.  In  which  case  it  will  no  more  be  necessary,  that  every 
creature  that  is  observed  steadily  to  work  toward  an  end,  should  itself 
design  and  know  it,  than  that  an  artificer's  tools  should  know  what  he 
is  doing  with  them  ;  but  if  they  do  not,  it  is  plain  he  must.     And  surely 

(4)  See  Boyle  on  Final  Causes,  Ray's  Wisdom  of  God  in  the  Creation,  Der- 
hani's  Astro  and  Physico  Theology,  Sturm's  Reflections,  Paley's  Natural 
Theology,  &c. 


294  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

it  lies  upon  them  who  so  except,  to  prove  in  this  case  what  they  say 
and  not  to  be  so  precarious  as  to  beg,  or  think  us  so  easy  as  to  grant,  so 
much,  only  because  they  have  thought  fit  to  say  it,  or  would  fain  have 
it  so,  that  is,  that  this  or  that  strange  event  happened  without  any 
designing  cause. 

"  But,  however,  I  would  demand,  of  such  as  make  this  exception, 
whether  they  think  there  be  any  effect  at  all,  to  which  a  designing 
cause  was  necessaiy,  or  which  they  will  judge  impossible  to  have  been 
otherwise  produced  than  by  the  direction  and  contrivance  of  wisdom  and 
counsel  ?  I  little  doubt  but  there  are  thousands  of  things,  laboured  and 
wrought  by  the  hand  of  man,  which  they  would  presently,  upon  first 
sight,  pronounce  to  be  the  effects  of  skill,  and  not  of  chance  ;  yea,  if 
they  only  considered  their  frame  and  shape,  though  they  understood  not 
their  use  and  end,  they  would  surely  think  at  least  some  effects  or  other 
sufficient  to  argue  to  us  a  designing  cause.  And  would  they  but  soberly 
consider  and  resolve  what  characters  or  footsteps  of  wisdom  and  design 
might  be  reckoned  sufficient  to  put  us  out  of  doubt,  would  they  not, 
upon  comparing,  be  brought  to  acknowledge  that  there  are  no  where 
any  more  conspicuous  and  manifest,  than  in  the  things  daily  in  view, 
that  go  ordinarily,  with  us,  under  the  name  of  works  of  nature  ? 
Whence  it  is  plainly  consequent,  that  what  men  commonly  call  uni- 
versal nature,  if  they  would  be  content  no  longer  to  lurk  in  the  darkness 
of  an  obscure  and  uninterpreted  word,  they  must  confess  is  nothing 
else  but  common  providence,  that  is,  the  universal  power  which  is  every 
where  active  in  the  world,  in  conjunction  with  the  unerring  wisdom 
which  guides  and  moderates  all  its  exertions  and  operations,  or  the 
wisdom  which  directs  and  governs  that  power.  They  must  therefore 
see  cause  to  acknowledge  that  an  exact  order  and  disposition  of  parts  in 
very  neat  and  elegant  compositions,  do  plainly  argue  wisdom  and  skill  in 
the  contrivance  ;  only  they  will  distinguish  and  say,  It  is  so  in  the  effects 
of  art,  but  not  of  nature.  What  is  this,  but  to  deny  in  particular  what 
they  granted  in  general  ?  To  make  what  they  have  said  signify  nothing 
more  than  if  they  had  said,  such  exquisite  order  of  parts  is  the  effect 
of  wisdom,  where  it  is  the  effect  of  wisdom ;  but  it  is  not  the  effect  of 
wisdom,  where  it  is  not  the  effect  of  wisdom  ;  and  to  trifle,  instead  of 
giving  a  reason  why  things  are  so  ?  And  whence  take  they  their 
advantage  for  this  trifling,  or  do  they  hope  to  hide  their  folly  in  it,  but 
that  they  think  while  what  is  meant  by  art  is  known,  what  is  meant  by 
nature  cannot  be  known  ?  But  if  it  be  not  known,  how  can  they  tell 
but  their  distinguishing  members  are  coincident,  and  run  into  one? 
Yea,  and  if  they  would  allow  the  thing  itself  to  speak,  and  the  effect  to 
confess  and  dictate  the  name  of  its  own  cause,  how  plain  is  it  that  they 
do  run  into  one  ;  and  that  the  expression  imports  no  impropriety,  which 
we  somewhere  find  in  Cicero,  The  art  of  nature ;  or  rather,  that  nature 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  295 

is  nothing  else  but  Divine  art,  at  least  in  as  near  an  analogy  as  between 
any  things  Divine  and  human?  But,  that  this  matter  (even  the  tiling 
itself,  waiving  for  the  present  the  consideration  of  names,)  may  be  a  little 
more  narrowly  discussed  and  searched  into,  let  some  curious  piece  of 
workmanship  be  offered  to  such  a  skeptic's  view,  the  making  whereof 
he  did  not  see,  nor  of  any  thing  like  it,  and  we  will  suppose  him  not 
told  that  this  was  made  by  the  hand  of  any  man,  nor  that  he  hath  any 
thing  to  guide  his  judgment  about  the  way  of  its  becoming  what  it  is, 
but  only  his  own  view  of  the  thing  itself;  and  yet  he  shall  presently, 
without  hesitation,  pronounce,  this  was  the  effect  of  much  skill.  I 
would  here  inquire,  Why  do  you  so  pronounoe  ?  Or,  What  is  the  reason 
of  this  your  judgment?  Surely  he  would  not  say  he  hath  no  reason  at 
all  for  this  so  confident  and  unwavering  determination ;  for  then  he 
would  not  be  determined,  but  speak  by  chance,  and  be  indifferent  to  say 
that  or  any  thing  else.  Somewhat  or  other  there  must  be,  that,  when 
he  is  asked,  is  this  the  effect  of  skill  ?  shall  so  suddenly  and  irresistibly 
captivate  him  into  an  assent  that  it  is  so,  that  he  cannot  think  otherwise. 
Nay,  if  a  thousand  men  were  asked  the  same  question,  they  would  as 
undoubtingly  say  the  same  thing ;  and  then,  since  there  is  a  reason  for 
this  judgment,  what  can  be  devised  to  be  the  reason,  but  that  there  are 
so  manifest  characters  and  evidences  of  skill  in  the  composure,  as  are 
not  attributable  to  any  thing  else  ?  Now  here  I  would  farther  demand, 
Is  there  any  thing  in  this  reason  ?  Yea,  or  No  ?  Doth  it  signify  any 
thing,  or  is  it  of  any  value  for  the  purpose  for  which  it  is  alleged  ? 
Surely  it  is  of  very  great,  inasmuch  as,  when  it  is  considered,  it  leave* 
it  not  in  a  man's  power  to  think  any  thing  else ;  and  what  can  be  said 
more  potently  and  efficaciously  to  demonstrate?  But  now,  if  this  reason 
signify  any  thing,  it  signifies  thus  much ;  that  wheresoever  there  are 
equal  characters,  and  evidences  of  skill,  a  skilful  agent  must  be 
acknowledged.  And  so  it  will,  (in  spite  of  cavil,)  conclude  universally, 
and  abstractedly,  from  what  we  can  suppose  distinctly  signified  by  the 
terms  of  art  and  nature,  that  whatsoever  effect  hath  such,  or  equal 
characters  of  skill  upon  it,  did  proceed  from  a  skilful  cause.  That  is, 
that  if  this  effect  be  said  to  be  from  a  skilful  cause,  as  having  manifest 
characters  of  skill  upon  it,  then  every  such  effect,  that  hath  equally 
manifest  characters  of  skill  upon  it,  must  be,  with  equal  reason,  con- 
cluded to  be  from  a  skilful  cause. 

"  We  will  acknowledge  skill  to  act,  and  wit  to  contrive,  to  be  very 
distinguishable  things,  and  in  reference  to  some  works,  (as  the  making 
some  curious  automaton,  or  self-moving  engine,)  are  commonly  lodged 
in  divers  subjects ;  that  is,  the  contrivance  exercises  the  wit  and 
invention  of  one,  and  the  making,  the  manual  skill  and  dexterity  of 
others  :  but  the  manifest  characters  of  both  will  be  seen  in  the  effect. — 
That  is,  the  curious  elaborateness  of  each  several  part  shows  the  latter, 


296  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

and  the  order  and  dependence  of  parts,  and  their  conspiracy  to  one 
common  end,  the  former.  Each  betokens  design ;  or  at  least  the  smith 
or  carpenter  must  be  understood  to  design  his  own  part,  that  is,  to  do  as 
he  was  directed  :  both  together  do  plainly  bespeak  an  agent  that  knew 
what  he  did ;  and  that  the.  thing  was  not  done  by  chance,  or  was  not 
the  casual  product  of  only  being  busy  at  random,  or  making  a  careless 
stir,  without  aiming  at  any  thing.  And  this,  no  man  that  is  in  his  wits 
would,  upon  sight  of  the  whole  frame,  more  doubt  to  assent  unto, 
than  that  two  and  two  make  four.  And  he  would  certainly  be  thought 
mad,  that  should  profess  to  think  that  only  by  some  one's  making  a 
bustle  among  several  small  fragments  of  brass,  iron,  and  wood,  these 
parts  happened  to  be  thus  curiously  formed,  and  came  together  into  this 
frame,  of  their  own  accord. 

"  Or  lest  this  should  be  thought  to  intimate  too  rude  a  representa- 
tion of  their  conceit  who  think  this  world  to  have  fallen  into  this  frame 
and  order  wherein  it  is,  by  the  agitation  of  the  moving  parts,  or 
particles  of  matter,  without  the  direction  of  a  wise  mover ;  and  that  we 
may  also  make  the  case  as  plain  as  is  possible  to  the  most  ordinary 
capacity,  we  will  suppose  (for  instance)  that  one  who  had  never  before 
seen  a  watch,  or  any  thing  of  that  sort,  hath  now  this  little  engine  first 
offered  to  his  view ;  can  we  doubt,  but  that  he  would,  upon  the  mere 
sight  of  its  figure,  structure,  and  the  very  curious  workmanship  which 
we  will  suppose  appearing  in  it,  presently  acknowledge  the  artificer's 
hand  ?  But  if  he  were  also  made  to  understand  the  use  and  purpose  for 
which  it  serves,  and  it  were  distinctly  shown  him  how  each  thing  con. 
tributes,  and  all  things  in  this  little  fabric  concur  to  this  purpose,  the 
exact  measuring  and  dividing  of  time  by  minutes,  hours,  and  months,  he 
would  certainly  both  confess  and  praise  the  great  ingenuity  of  the  first 
inventor.  But  now  if  a  bystander,  beholding  him  in  this  admiration, 
would  undertake  to  show  a  profounder  reach  and  strain  of  wit,  and 
should  say,  Sir,  you  are  mistaken  concerning  the  composition  of  this 
so  much  admired  piece ;  it  was  not  made  or  designed  by  the  hand  or 
skill  of  any  one ;  there  were  only  an  innumerable  company  of  little 
atoms  or  very  small  bodies,  much  too  small  to  be  perceived  by  your 
sense,  that  were  busily  frisking  and  plying  to  and  fro  about  the  place 
of  its  nativity ;  and  by  a  strange  chance  or  a  stranger  fate,  and  the 
necessary  laws  of  that  motion  which  they  were  unavoidably  put  into, 
by  a  certain  boisterous,  undesigning  mover,  they  fell  together  into  this 
small  bulk,  so  as  to  compose  this  very  shape  and  figure,  and  with  this 
same  number  and  order  of  parts  which  you  now  behold  :  one  squadron 
v>f  these  busy  particles  (little  thinking  what  they  were  about)  agreeing  to 
make  one  wheel,  and  another  a  second,  in  that  proportion  which  you  see  : 
others  of  them  also  falling  and  becoming  fixed  in  so  happy  a  posture 
and  situation  as  to  describe  the  several  figures  by  which  the  little  mov. 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  297 

ing  fingers  point  out  the  hours  of  the  day,  and  the  day  of  the  month  : 
and  all  conspired  to  fall  together,  each  into  its  own  place,  in  so  lucky  a 
juncture,  as  that  the  regular  motion  failed  not  to  ensue  which  we  see  is 
now  observed  in  it, — what  man  is  either  so  wise  or  so  foolish,  (for  it  is 
hard  to  determine  whether  the  excess  or  the  defect  should  best  qualify 
him  to  be  of  this  faith,)  as  to  be  capable  of  being  made  believe  this  piece 
of  natural  history  ?  And  if  any  one  should  give  this  account  of  the  pro- 
duction of  such  a  trifle,  would  he  not  be  thought  in  jest  ?  But  if  he 
persist,  and  solemnly  profess  that  thus  he  takes  it  to  have  been,  would 
he  not  be  thought  in  good  earnest  mad  ?  And  let  but  any  sober  reason 
judge  whether  we  have  not  unspeakably  more  madness  to  contend 
against  in  such  as  suppose  this  world,  and  the  bodies  of  living  creatures, 
to  have  fallen  into  this  frame  and  orderly  disposition  of  parts  wherein 
they  are,  without  the  direction  of  a  wise  and  designing  cause  ?  And 
whether  there  be  not  an  incomparably  greater  number  of  most  wild  and 
arbitary  suppositions  in  tlieir  fiction  than  in  this  ?  Beside  the  innumi 
rable  supposed  repetitions  of  the  same  strange  chances  all  the  world 
over ;  even  as  numberless,  not  only  as  productions,  but  as  the  changes 
that  continually  happen  to  all  the  things  produced.  And  if  the 
concourse  of  atoms  could  make  this  world,  why  not  (for  it  is  but  little 
to  mention  such  a  thing  as  this,)  a  porch,  or  a  temple,  or  a  house,  or  a 
city,  as  Tully  speaks,  which  were  less  operous,  and  much  more  easy 
performances  ? 

"  It  is  not  to  be  supposed  that  all  should  be  astronomers,  anatomists, 
or  natural  philosophers,  that  shall  read  these  lines ;  and  therefore  it  is 
intended  not  to  insist  upon  particulars,  and  to  make  as  little  use  as  is 
possible  of  terms  that  would  only  be  agreeable  to  that  supposition.  But 
surely  such  general,  easy  reflections  on  the  frame  of  the  universe,  and 
the  order  of  parts  in  the  bodies  of  all  sorts  of  living  creatures,  as  the 
meanest  ordinary  understanding  is  capable  of,  would  soon  discover 
incomparably  greater  evidence  of  wisdom  and  design  in  the  contrivance 
of  these,  than  in  that  of  a  watch  or  a  clock.  And  if  there  were  any 
whose  understandings  are  but  of  that  size  and  measure  as  to  suppose 
that  the  whole  frame  of  the  heavens  serves  to  no  other  purpose  than  to 
be  cf  some  such  use  to  us  mortals  here  on  earth  as  that  instrument ;  if 
they  would  but  allow  themselves  leisure  to  think  and  consider,  they  might 
discern  the  most  convincing  and  amazing  discoveries  of  wise  contri- 
vance and  design  (as  well  as  the  vastest  might  and  power)  in  disposing 
things  into  so  apt  a  subserviency  to  that  meaner  end ;  and  that  so  exact 
a  knowledge  is  had  thereby  of  times  and  seasons,  days  and  years,  as 
that  the  simplest  idiot  in  a  country  may  be  able  to  tell  you,  when  the 
light  of  the  sun  is  withdrawn  from  his  eyes,  at  what  time  it  will  return, 
and  when  it  will  look  in  at  such  a  window,  and  when  at  the  other ;  and 
bv  what  degrees  his  days  and  nights  shall  either  be  increased  or  dimi- 


298  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PAKT 

nished  ;  and  what  proportion  of  time  he  shall  have  for  his  labours  in 
this  season  of  the  year,  and  what  in  that ;  without  the  least  suspicion  or 
fear  that  it  shall  ever  fall  out  otherwise. 

"  For  let  us  suppose  (what  no  man  can  pretend  is  more  impossible, 
and  what  any  man  must  confess  is  less  considerable,  than  what  our  eyes 
daily  see,)  that  in  some  part  of  the  air  near  this  earth,  and  within  such 
limits  as  that  the  whole  scene  might  be  conveniently  beheld  at  one  view, 
there  should  suddenly  appear  a  little  globe  of  pure  flaming  light  resem- 
bling that  of  the  sun,  and  suppose  it  fixed  as  a  centre  to  another  body, 
or  moving  about  that  other  as  its  centre,  (as  this  or  that  hypothesis  best 
pleases  us,)  which  we  could  plainly  perceive  to  be  a  proportionably 
little  earth,  beautified  with  little  trees  and  woods,  flowery  fields  and 
flowing  rivulets,  with  larger  lakes  into  which  these  discharge  them- 
selves ;  and  suppose  we  see  other  planets  all  of  proportionable  bigness 
to  the  narrow  limits  assigned  them,  placed  at  their  due  distances,  and 
playing  about  this  supposed  earth  or  sun,  so  as  to  measure  their  shorter 
and  soon  absolved  days,  months,  and  years,  or  two,  twelve,  or  thirty 
years,  according  to  their  supposed  circuits ; — would  they  not  presently, 
and  with  great  amazement,  confess  an  intelligent  contriver  and  maker 
of  this  whole  frame,  above  a  Posidonius  or  any  mortal?  And  have  we 
not  in  the  present  frame  of  things  a  demonstration  of  wisdom  and  coun- 
sel, as  far  exceeding  that  which  is  now  supposed,  as  the  making  some 
toy  or  bauble  to  please  a  child  is  less  an  argument  of  wisdom  than  the 
contrivance  of  somewhat  that  is  of  apparent  and  universal  use  ?  Or  if 
we  could  suppose  this  present  state  of  things  to  have  but  newly  begun, 
and  ourselves  pre-existent,  so  that  we  could  take  notice  of  the  very 
passing  of  things  out  of  horrid  confusion  into  the  comely  order  they  are 
now  in,  would  not  this  put  the  matter  out  of  doubt  ?  But  might  what 
would  yesterday  have  been  the  effect  of  wisdom,  better  have  been 
brought  about  by  chance,  five  or  six  thousand  years,  or  any  longer  time 
ago  ?  It  speaks  not  want  of  evidence  in  the  thing,  but  want  of  consi- 
deration, and  of  exercising  our  understandings,  if  what  were  new  would 
not  only  convince  but  astonish,  and  what  is  old,  of  the  same  importance, 
doth  not  so  much  as  convince  ! 

"  And  let  them  that  understand  any  thing  of  the  composition  of  a 
human  body  (or  indeed  of  any  living  creature)  but  bethink  themselves 
whether  there  be  not  equal  contrivance,  at  least,  appearing  in  the  com- 
posure of  that  admirable  fabric,  as  of  any  the  most  admired  machine  or 
engine  devised  and  made  by  human  skill  and  wit.  If  we  pitch  upon 
any  thing  of  known  and  common  use,  as  suppose  again,  a  clock  or 
watch,  which  is  no  sooner  seen  than  it  is  acknowledged  (as  hath  been 
said)  the  effect  of  a  designing  cause ;  will  we  not  confess  as  much  of 
the  body  of  a  man  1  Yea,  what  comparison  is  there,  when  in  the 
structure  of  some  one  single  member,  as  a  hand,  a  foot,  an  eye,  or  ear. 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL     INSTITUTES.  299 

there  appears  upon  a  diligent  search,  unspeakably  greater  curiosity, 
whether  we  consider  the  variety  of  parts,  their  exquisite  figuration,  or 
their  apt  disposition  to  the  distinct  uses  and  ends  these  members  serve 
for,  than  is  to  be  seen  in  any  clock  or  watch  ?  Concerning  which 
uses  of  the  several  parts  in  man's  body,  Galen,  so  largely  discoursing 
in  seventeen  books,  inserts  on  the  leg,  this  epiphonema,  upon  the  men- 
tion of  one  particular  instance  of  our  most  wise  Maker's  provident 
care  : — '  Unto  whom  (saith  he)  I  compose  these  commentaries,'  (mean- 
ing  his  present  work  of  unfolding  the  useful  figuration  of  the  human 
body,)  « as  certain  hymns,  or  songs  of  praise,  esteeming  true  piety  to 
consist  in  this,  that  I  first  may  know,  and  then  declare  to  others,  his 
wisdom,  power,  providence,  and  goodness,  than  in  sacrificing  to  him 
many  hecatombs :  and  in  the  ignorance  whereof  there  is  greatest 
impiety,  rather  than  in  abstaining  from  sacrifice.'  '  Nor,'  (as  he  adds 
in  the  close  of  that  excellent  work,)  « is  the  most  perfect  natural  artifice 
to  be  seen  in  man  only  ;  but  you  may  find  the  like  industrious  design 
and  wisdom  of  the  Author,  in  any  living  creature  which  you  shall 
please  to  dissect :  and  by  how  much  the  less  it  is,  so  much  the  greater 
admiration  shall  it  excite  in  you  ;  which  those  artists  show,  that  describe 
some  great  thing  (contractedly)  in  a  very  small  space :  as  that  person 
who  lately  engraved  Phaeton  carried  in  his  chariot  with  his  four  horses 
upon  a  little  ring — a  most  incredible  sight !  But  there  is  nothing  in 
matters  of  this  nature  more  strange  than  in  the  structure  of  the  leg  of 
a  flea.'  How  much  more  might  it  be  said  of  all  its  inward  parts? 
•  Therefore,  (as  he  adds,)  the  greatest  commodity  of  such  a  work  accrues 
not  to  physicians,  but  to  them  who  are  studious  of  nature,  namely,  the 
knowledge  of  our  Maker's  perfection,  and  that  (as  he  had  said  a  little 
above)  it  establishes  the  principle  of  the  most  perfect  theology  ;  which 
theology  is  much  more  excellent  than  all  medicine.' 

"  It  were  too  great  an  undertaking,  and  beyond  the  designed  limits  of 
this  discourse,  (though  it  would  be  to  excellent  purpose,  if  it  could  be 
done  without  amusing  terms,  and  in  that  easy,  familiar  way  as  to  be 
capable  of  common  use,)  to  pursue,  and  trace  distinctly  the  prints  and 
footsteps  of  the  admirable  wisdom  which  appears  in  the  structure  and 
frame  of  this  outer  temple.  For  even  our  bodies  themselves  are  said  to 
be  the  temples  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  1  Cor.  vi,  19.  And  to  dwell  awhile 
in  the  contemplation  and  discovery  of  those  numerous  instances  of  most 
apparent,  ungainsayable  sagacity  and  providence  which  offer  themselves 
to  view  in  every  part  and  particle  of  this  fabric :  how  most  commodi- 
ously  all  things  are  ordered  in  it !  With  how  strangely  cautious  cir- 
cumspection and  foresight  not  only  destructive,  but  even  (perpetually) 
vexatious  and  afflicting  incongruities  are  avoided  and  provided  against, 
to  pose  ourselves  upon  the  sundry  obvious  questions  that  might  be  put 
for  the  evincing  of  such  provident  foresight.     As  for  instance,  how 


300  THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES.  [PART 

comes  it  to  pass  that  the  several  parts  which  we  find  to  be  double  in  our 
bodies,  are  not  single  only  ?  Is  this  altogether  by  chance  ?  That  there 
are  two  eyes,  ears,  nostrils,  hands,  feet,  &c  :  what  a  miserable,  shiftless 
creaiure  had  man  been,  if  there  had  only  been  allowed  him  one  foot ! 
A  seeing,  hearing,  talking,  unmoving  statue.  That  the  hand  is  divided 
into  fingers  ?  Those  so  conveniently  situate,  one  in  so  fitly  opposite  a 
posture  to  the  rest? 

"  And  what,  if  some  one  pair  or  other  of  these  parts  had  been  uni- 
versally wanting  ?  The  hands,  the  feet,  the  eyes,  the  ears.  How  great 
a  misery  had  it  inferred  upon  mankind !  and  is  it  only  a  casualty 
that  it  is  not  so  ?  That  the  back  bone  is  composed  of  so  many  joints, 
(twenty-four,  beside  those  of  that  which  is  the  basis  and  sustainer  of 
the  whole,)  and  is  not  all  of  a  piece,  by  which  stooping,  or  any  motion 
of  the  head  or  neck,  diverse  from  that  of  the  whole  body,  had  been 
altogether  impossible ;  that  there  is  such  variety  and  curiosity  in  the 
ways  of  joining  the  bones  together  in  that,  and  other  parts  of  the  body, 
that  in  some  parts  they  are  joined  by  mere  adherence  of  one  to  another, 
either  with  or  without  an  intervening  medium,  and  both  these  ways  so 
diversely  ;  that  others  are  fastened  together  by  proper  jointing,  so  as  to 
suit  and  be  accompanied  with  motion,  either  more  obscure  or  more 
manifest,  and  this,  either  by  a  deeper,  or  more  superficial  insertion  of 
one  bone  into  another,  or  by  a  mutual  insertion,  and  that  in  different 
ways ;  and  that  all  these  should  be  so  exactly  accommodated  to  the 
several  parts  and  uses  to  which  they  belong  and  serve ; — was  all  this 
without  design  ?  Who  that  views  the  curious  and  apt  texture  of  the 
eye,  can  think  it  was  not  made  on  purpose  to  see  with ;  and  the  ear, 
upon  the  like  view,  for  hearing,  when  so  many  things  must  concur  that 
these  actions  might  be  performed  by  these  organs,  and  are  found  to  do 
so  ?  Or  who  can  think  that  the  sundry  little  engines  belonging  to  the 
eye  were  not  made  with  design  to  move  it  upward,  downward,  to  this 
side  or  that,  or  whirl  it  about  as  there  should  be  occasion  ;  without 
which  instruments  and  their  appendages,  no  such  motion  could  have 
been  ?  Who,  that  is  not  stupidly  perverse,  can  think  that  the  sundry 
inward  parts  (which  it  would  require  a  volume  distinctly  to  speak 
of,  and  but  to  mention  them  and  their  uses  would  too  unproportion- 
ably  swell  this  part  of  this  discourse)  were  not  made  purposely  by  a 
designing  agent,  for  the  ends  they  so  aptly  and  constantly  serve  for  ? 
The  want  of  some  one  among  divers  whereof,  or  but  a  little  misplacing, 
or  if  things  had  been  but  a  little  otherwise  than  they  are,  had  inferred 
an  impossibility  that  such  a  creature  as  man  could  have  subsisted,  or 
been  propagated  upon  the  face  of  the  earth.  As  what  if  there  had  not 
been  such  a  receptacle  prepared  as  the  stomach  is,  and  so  formed  and 
placed  as  it  is,  to  receive  and  digest  necessary  nutriment  ?  Had  not  the 
whole  frame  of  man  beside  been  in  vain  ?     Or  what  if  the  passage  from 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  301 

it  downward  had  not  been  made  somewhat  a  little  ascending,  so  as  to 
detain  a  convenient  time  what  it  received,  but  that  what  was  taken  in 
were  suddenly  transmitted  ?  It  is  evident  the  whole  structure  had  been 
ruined  as  soon  as  made.  What,  (to  instance  in  what  seems  so  small  a 
matter,)  if  that  little  cover  had  been  wanting  at  the  entrance  of  that 
through  which  we  breathe ;  (the  depression  whereof  by  the  weight  of 
what  we  eat  or  drink,  shuts  it,  and  prevents  meat  and  drink  from  going 
down  that  way ;)  had  not  unavoidable  suffocation  ensued  ?  And  who 
can  number  the  instances  that  can  be  given  beside  ?  Now  when  there 
is  a  concurrence  of  so  many  things  absolutely  necessary,  (concerning 
which  the  common  saying  is  as  applicable,  more  frequently  wont  to  be 
applied  to  matters  of  morality, — '  Goodness  is  from  the  concurrence  of  all 
causes,  evil,  from  any  defect/)  each  so  aptly  and  opportunely  serving 
its  own  proper  use,  and  all,  one  common  end,  certainly  to  say  that  so 
manifold,  so  regular  and  stated  a  subserviency  to  that  end,  and  the  end 
itself,  were  undesigned,  and  things  casually  fell  out  thus,  is  to  say  we 
know  or  care  not  what. 

"  We  will  only,  before  we  close  this  consideration,  concerning  the 
mere  frame  of  a  human  body,  (which  hath  been  so  hastily  and  super- 
ficially  proposed,)  offer  a  supposition  which  is  no  more  strange  (ex- 
cluding the  vulgar  notion  by  which  nothing  is  strange,  but  what  is  not 
common)  than  the  thing  itself  as  it  actually  is ;  namely,  that  the  whole 
more  external  covering  of  the  body  of  a  man  were  made,  instead  of  skin 
and  flesh,  of  some  very  transparent  substance,  flexible,  but  clear  as  very 
crystal ;  through  which,  and  the  other  more  inward  (and  as  transparent) 
integuments,  or  enfoldings,  we  could  plainly  perceive  the  situation  and 
order  of  all  the  internal  parts,  and  how  they  each  of  them  perform  their 
distinct  offices  :  if  we  could  discern  the  continual  motion  of  the  blood, 
how  it  is  conveyed,  by  its  proper  conduits,  from  its  first  source  and 
fountain,  partly  downward  to  the  lower  entrails,  (if  rather  it  ascend  not 
from  thence,  as  at  least  what  afterward  becomes  blood  doth,)  partly  up- 
ward,  to  its  admirable  elaboratory,  the  heart ;  where  it  is  refined  and 
furnished  with  fresh  vital  spirits,  and  so  transmitted  thence  by  the  dis- 
tinct vessels,  prepared  for  thi3  purpose :  could  we  perceive  the  curious 
contrivance  of  those  little  doors,  by  which  it  is  let  in  and  out,  on  this 
side  and  on  that ;  the  order  and  course  of  its  circulation,  its  most  com- 
modious distribution  by  two  social  channels  or  conduit  pipes,  that  every 
where  accompany  one  another  throughout  the  body  :  could  we  discern 
the  curious  artifice  of  the  brain,  its  ways  of  purgation ;  and  were  it 
possible  to  pry  into  the  secret  chambers  and  receptacles  of  the  less  or 
more  pure  spirits  there ;  perceive  their  manifold  conveyances,  and  the 
rare  texture  of  that  net,  commonly  called  the  wonderful  one :  could  we 
behold  the  veins,  arteries,  and  nerves,  all  of  them  arising  from  their 
proper  and  distinct  originals  ;  and  their  orderly  dispersion  for  the  most 


302  THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


IPAHT 


part  by  pairs,  and  conjugations,  on  this  side  and  that,  from  the  middle 
of  the  back ;  with  the  curiously  wrought  branches,  which,  supposing 
these  to  appear  duly  diversified,  as  so  many  more  duskish  strokes  in  this 
transparent  frame  they  would  be  found  to  make  throughout  the  whole 
of  it ;  were  every  smaller  fibre  thus  made  at  once  discernible,  especially 
those  innumerable  threads  into  which  the  spinal  marrow  is  distributed 
at  the  bottom  of  the  back :  and  could  we,  through  the  same  medium, 
perceive  those  numerous  little  machines  made  to  serve  unto  voluntary 
motions,  (which  in  the  whole  body  are  computed,  by  some,  to  the  number 
of  four  hundred  and  thirty,  or  thereabouts,  or  so  many  of  them  as, 
according  to  the  present  supposition,  could  possibly  come  in  view,)  and 
discern  their  composition,  their  various  and  elegant  figures — round, 
square,  long,  triangular,  &c,  and  behold  them  do  their  offices,  and  see 
how  they  ply  to  and  fro,  and  work  in  their  respective  places,  as  any 
motion  is  to  be  performed  by  them :  were  all  these  things,  I  say,  thus 
made  liable  to  an  easy  and  distinct  view,  who  would  not  admiringly  cry 
out,  How  fearfully  and  wonderfully  am  I  made  1  And  sure  there  is  no 
man  sober,  who  would  not,  upon  such  a  sight,  pronounce  that  man  mad, 
that  should  suppose  such  a  production  to  have  been  a  mere  undesigned 
casualty.  At  least,  if  there  be  any  thing  in  the  world  that  may  be 
thought  to  carry  sufficiently  convincing  evidences  in  it,  of  its  having 
been  made  industriously,  and  on  purpose,  not  by  chance,  would  not  this 
composition,  thus  offered  to  view,  be  esteemed  to  do  so  much  more? 
Yea,  and  if  it  did  only  bear  upon  it  characters  equally  evidential,  of 
wisdom  and  design,  with  what  doth  certainly  so,  though  in  the  lowest 
degree,  it  were  sufficient  to  evince  our  present  purpose.  For  if  one 
such  instance  as  this  would  bring  the  matter  no  higher  than  to  a  bare 
equality,  that  would  at  least  argue  a  maker  of  man's  body,  as  wise,  and 
as  properly  designing  as  the  artificer  of  any  such  slighter  piece  of  work- 
manship, that  may  yet,  certainly,  be  concluded  the  effect  of  skill  and 
design.  And  then,  enough  might  be  said,  from  other  instances,  to  mani- 
fest him  unspeakably  superior.  And  that  the  matter  would  be  brought, 
at  least,  to  an  equality  upon  the  supposi  ion  now  made,  there  can  be  no 
doubt,  if  any  one  be  judge  that  hath  not  abjured  his  understanding  and 
his  eyes  together.  And  what  then,  if  we  lay  aside  that  supposition, 
(which  only  somewhat  gratifies  fancy  and  imagination,)  doth  that  alter 
the  case  ?  Or  is  there  the  less  of  wisdom  and  contrivance  expressed  in 
this  work  of  forming  man's  body,  only  for  that  it  is  not  so  easily  and 
suddenly  obvious  to  our  sight  ?  Then  we  might  with  the  same  reason 
say,  concerning  some  curious  piece  of  carved  work  that  is  thought  fit  to 
be  kept  locked  up  in  a  cabinet,  when  we  see  it,  that  there  was  admirable 
workmanship  shown  in  doing  it ;  but  as  soon  as  it  is  again  shut  up  in  its 
repository,  that  there  was  none  at  all.  Inasmuch  as  we  speak  o^  the 
objective  characters  of  wisdom  and  design,  that  are  in  the  thing  itself. 


SECOND.)  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  305 

(though  they  must  some  way  or  other  come  under  our  notice,  otherwise 
we  can  be  capable  of  arguing  nothing  from  them,  yet,)  since  we  have 
sufficient  assurance  that  there  really  are  such  characters  in  the  structure 
of  the  body  of  man  as  have  been  mentioned,  and  a  thousand  more  than 
have  been  thought  necessary  to  be  mentioned  here ;  it  is  plain  that  the 
greater  or  less  facility  of  finding  them  out,  so  that  we  be  at  a  certainty 
that  they  are,  (whether  by  the  slower,  or  more  gradual  search  of  our 
own  eyes,  or  by  reiving  upon  the  testimony  of  such  as  have  purchased 
themselves  that  satisfaction  by  their  own  labour  and  diligence,)  is  merely 
accidental  to  the  thing  itself  we  are  discoursing  of;  and  neither  adds 
to,  nor  detracts  from  the  rational  evidence  of  the  present  argument.  Or 
if  it  do  either,  the  more  abstruse  paths  of  Divine  wisdom  in  this,  as  in 
other  things,  do  rather  recommend  it  the  more  to  our  adoration  and 
reverence,  than  if  every  thing  were  obvious,  and  lay  open  to  the  first 
glance  of  a  more  careless  eye.  The  things  which  we  are  sure  (or  may 
be,  if  we  do  not  shut  our  eyes)  the  wise  Maker  of  this  world  hath  done, 
do  sufficiently  serve  to  assure  us,  that  he  could  have  done  this  also  ;  that 
is,  have  made  every  thing  in  the  frame  and  shape  of  our  bodies  con- 
spicuous in  the  way  but  now  supposed,  if  he  had  thought  it  fit.  He 
hath  done  greater  things.  And  since  he  hath  not  thought  that  fit,  we 
may  be  bold  to  say,  the  doing  of  it  would  signify  more  trifling,  and  less 
design.  It  gives  us  a  more  amiable  and  comely  representation  of  the 
Being  we  are  treating  of,  that  his  works  are  less  for  ostentation  than 
use ;  and  that  his  wisdom  and  other  attributes  appear  in  them  rather  to 
the  instruction  of  sober,  than  the  gratification  of  vain  minds.        — "    " 

'*,  We  may  therefore  confidently  conclude,  that  the  figuration  of  the 
human  body  carries  with  it  as  manifest,  unquestionable  evidences  of  de- 
sign, as  any  piece  of  human  artifice,  that  most  confessedly,  in  the  judg- 
ment of  any  man,  doth  so ;  and  therefore  had  as  certainly  a  designing 
cause.  We  may  challenge  the  world  to  show  a  disparity,  unless  it  be 
that  the  advantage  is  inconceivably  great  on  our  side.  For  would  not 
any  one  that  hath  not  abandoned  both  his  reason  and  his  modesty,  be 
ashamed  to  confess  and  admire  the  skill  that  is  shown  in  making  a 
statue,  or  the  picture  of  a  man,  that  (as  one  ingeniously  says)  is  but  the 
shadow  of  his  skin,  and  deny  the  wisdom  that  appears  in  the  composure 
of  his  body  itself,  that  contains  so  numerous  and  so  various  engines  and 
instruments  for  sundry  purposes  in  it,  as  that  it  is  become  an  art,  and  a 
very  laudable  one,  but  to  discover  and  find  out  the  art  and  skill  that  are 
shown  in  the  contrivance  and  formation  of  them? 

"  And  now  if  any  should  be  so  incurably  blind  as  not  to  perceive,  or 
so  perversely  wilful  as  not  to  acknowledge,  an  appearance  of  wisdom  in 
the  fn;me  and  figuration  of  the  body  of  an  animal  (peculiarly  of  man) 
more  th«.n  equal  to  what  appears  in  any  the  most  exquisite  piece  of 
human  aruvcc,  and  which  no  wit  of  man  can  ever  fully  imitate;  although, 


304  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  TPART 

as  hath  been  said,  an  acknowledged  equality  would  suffice  to  evince  a 
wise  Maker  thereof,  yet  because  it  is  the  existence  of  God  we  are  now 
speaking  of,  and  that  it  is  therefore  not  enough  to  evince,  but  to  magnify 
the  wisdom  we  would  ascribe  to  him ;  we  shall  pass  from  the  parts  and 
frame  to  the  consideration  of  the  more  principal  powers  and  functions 
of  terrestrial  creatures ;  ascending  from  such  as  agree  to  the  less  ]  er- 
fect  order  of  these,  to  those  of  the  more  perfect,  namely,  of  man  him- 
self.  And  surely  to  have  been  the  author  of  faculties  that  shall  enable 
to  such  functions,  will  evidence  a  wisdom  that  defies  our  imitation,  and 
will  dismay  the  attempts  of  it. 

"  We  begin  with  that  of  growth.  Many  sorts  of  rare  engines  we  ac- 
knowledge contrived  by  the  wit  of  man,  but  who  hath  ever  made  one 
that  could  grow,  or  that  had  in  it  a  self-improving  power?  A  tree,  an 
herb,  a  pile  of  grass,  may  upon  this  account  challenge  all  the  world  to 
make  such  a  thing ;  that  is,  to  implant  the  power  of  growing  into  any 
thing  to  which  it  doth  not  natively  belong,  or  to  make  a  thing  to  which 
it  doth. 

"  By  what  art  would  they  make  a  seed  ?  And  which  way  would  they 
inspire  it  with  a  seminal  form  ?  And  they  that  think  this  whole  globe  of 
the  earth  was  compacted  by  the  casual  (or  fatal)  coalition  of  particles 
of  matter,  by  what  magic  would  they  conjure  up  so  many  to  come  toge- 
ther as  to  make  one  clod  ?  We  vainly  hunt  with  a  lingering  mind  after 
miracles ;  if  we  did  not  more  vainly  mean  by  them  nothing  else  but 
novelties,  we  are  compassed  about  with  such  :  and  the  greatest  miracle 
is,  that  we  see  them  not.  You  with  whom  the  daily  productions  of 
nature  (as  you  call  it)  are  so  cheap,  see  if  you  can  do  the  like.  Try 
your  skill  upon  a  rose.  Yea,  but  you  must  have  pre-existent  matter  ? 
But  can  you  ever  prove  the  Maker  of  the  world  had  so,  or  even  defend 
the  possibility  of  uncreated  matter  ?  And  suppose  they  had  the  free  grant 
of  all  the  matter  between  the  crown  of  their  head  and  the  moon,  could 
they  tell  what  to  do  with  it,  or  how  to  manage  it,  so  as  to  make  it  yield 
them  one  single  flower,  that  they  might  glory  in  as  their  own  production  ? 

"  And  what  mortal  man,  that  hath  reason  enough  about  him  to  be 
serious,  and  to  think  awhile,  would  not  even  be  amazed  at  the  miracle 
of  nutrition  ?  Or  that  there  are  things  in  the  world  capable  of  nourish- 
ment? Or  who  would  attempt  an  imitation  here,  or  not  despair  to  per- 
form any  thing  like  it  ?  That  is,  to  make  any  nourishable  thing.  Are 
we  not  here  infinitely  outdone  ?  Do  we  not  see  ourselves  compassed 
about  with  wonders,  and  are  we  not  ourselves  such,  in  that  we  see,  and 
are  creatures,  from  all  whose  parts  there  is  a  continual  defluxion,  and 
yet  that  receive  a  constant  gradual  supply  and  renovation,  by  which 
they  are  continued  in  the  same  state  ?  as  the  bush  burning  but  not  con- 
sumed. It  is  easy  to  give  an  artificial  frame  to  a  thing  that  shall  gra- 
dually decay  and  waste  till  it  be  quite  gone,  and  disappear.     You  could 


8ECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  306 

raise  a  structure  of  snow  that  would  soon  do  that.  But  can  your  man- 
ual skill  compose  a  thing  that,  like  our  bodies,  shall  be  continually  melt, 
ing  away,  and  be  continually  repaired,  through  so  long  a  tract  of  time  1 
Nay,  but  can  you  tell  how  it  is  done  ?  You  know  in  what  method,  and 
by  what  instruments,  food  is  received,  concocted,  separated,  and  so  much 
as  must  serve  for  nourishment  turned  into  chyle,  and  that  into  blood,  firsf> 
grosser,  and  then  more  refined,  and  that  distributed  into  all  parts  for  this 
purpose.  Yea,  and  what  then  1  Therefore  are  you  as  wise  as  your 
Maker  ?  Could  you  have  made  such  a  thing  as  the  stomach,  a  liver,  a 
heart,  a  vein,  an  artery  ?  Or  are  you  so  very  sure  what  the  digestive 
quality  is  ?  Or  if  you  are,  and  know  what  things  best  serve  to  maintain, 
to  repair,  or  strengthen  it,  who  implanted  that  quality  ?  Both  where  it  i* 
so  immediately  useful,  or  in  the  other  things  you  would  use  for  the  ser- 
vice of  that  ?  Or  how,  if  such  things  had  not  been  prepared  to  your  hand, 
would  you  have  devised  to  persuade  the  particles  of  matter  into  so  useful 
and  happy  a  conjuncture,  as  that  such  a  quality  might  result  ?  Or  (to 
speak  more  suitably  to  the  most)  how,  if  you  had  not  been  shown  the 
way,  would  you  have  thought  it  were  to  be  done,  or  which  way  would 
you  have  gone  to  work,  to  turn  meat  and  drink  into  flesh  and  blood  ? 

"  And  what  shall  we  say  of  spontaneous  motion,  wherewith  we  find 
also  creatures  endowed  that  are  so  mean  and  despicable  in  our  eyes^ 
(as  well  as  ourselves,)  that  is,  that  so  silly  a  thing  as  a  fly,  a  gnat,  dtc, 
should  have  a  power  in  it  to  move  itself,  or  stop  its  own  motion,  at  it* 
own  pleasure  ?  How  far  have  all  attempted  imitations  in  this  kind  fallen 
short  of  this  perfection  !  And  how  much  more  excellent  a  thing  is  the 
smallest  and  most  contemptible  insect,  than  the  most  admired  machine 
we  ever  heard  or  read  of;  (as  Architas  Tarentinus's  dove  so  anciently 
celebrated,  or  more  lately  Regiomontanus's  fly,  or  his  eagle,  or  any  the 
like ;)  not  only  as  having  this  peculiar  power,  above  any  thing  of  this 
sort,  but  as  having  the  sundry  other  powers  beside,  meeting  in  it,  whereof 
these  are  wholly  destitute  ? 

"  And  should  we  go  on  to  instance  farther  in  the  several  powers  of 
sensation,  both  external  and  internal,  the  various  instincts,  appetitions, 
passions,  sympathies,  antipathies,  the  powers  of  memory,  (and  we  might 
add  of  speech,)  that  we  find  the  inferior  orders  of  creatures  either  gene- 
rally furnished  with,  or  some  of  them,  as  to  this  last,  disposed  unto ;  how 
should  we  even  overdo  the  present  business ;  and  too  needlessly  insult 
over  human  wit,  (which  we  must  suppose  to  have  already  yielded  the 
cause,)  in  challenging  it  to  produce  and  offer  to  view  a  hearing,  seeing 
engine,  that  can  imagine,  talk,  is  capable  of  hunger,  thirst,  of  desire,, 
anger,  fear,  grief,  &c,  as  its  own  creature,  concerning  which  it  may 
glory  and  say,  I  have  done  this! 

"  Is  it  so  admirable  a  performance,  and  so  ungainsayable  an  evidence 
of  skill  and  wisdom,  with  much  labour  and  long  travail  of  mind  ;  a  busy, 

Vol.  I.  W 


306  THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES.  tPART 

restless  agitation  of  working  thoughts  ;  the  often  renewal  of  frustrated 
attempts :  the  varying  of  defeated  trials,  this  way  and  that,  at  length  to 
hit  upon,  and  by  much  pains,  and  with  a  slow,  gradual  progress,  by  the 
use  of  who  can  tell  how  many  sundry  sorts  of  instruments  or  tools,  by 
long  hewing,  hammering,  turning,  filing,  to  compose  one  only  single 
machine  of  such  a  frame  and  structure  as  that,  by  the  frequent  rein- 
forcement of  a  skilful  hand,  it  may  be  capable  of  some  (and  that  other- 
wise  but  a  very  short-lived)  motion  ?  And  is  it  no  argument,  or  effect 
of  wisdom,  so  easily  and  certainly,  without  labour,  error,  or  disappoint- 
ment, to  frame  both  so  infinite  a  variety  of  kinds,  and  so  innumerable 
individuals  of  every  such  kind  of  living  creatures,  that  not  only  with  the 
greatest  facility  can  move  themselves  with  so  many  soi'ts  of  motion 
downward,  upward,  to  and  fro,  this  way  or  that,  with  a  progressive  or 
circular,  a  swifter  or  a  slower  motion,  at  their  own  pleasure  ;  but  can 
also  grow,  propagate,  see,  hear,  desire,  joy,  &c  ?  Is  this  no  work  of  wis- 
dom, but  only  either  blind  fate  or  chance?  Of  how  strangely  perverse 
and  odd  a  complexion  is  that  understanding,  (if  yet  it  may  be  called  an 
understanding  )  that  can  make  this  judgment? 

"  Cut  because  whatsoever  comes  under  the  name  of  cogitation,  pro- 
perly taken,  is  assigned  to  some  higher  cause  than  mechanism ;  and 
that  there  are  operations  belonging  to  man,  which  lay  claim  to  a  reason- 
able soul,  as  the  immediate  principle  and  author  of  them,  we  have  yet 
this  farther  step  to  advance,  that  is,  to  consider  the  most  apparent  evi- 
dence we  have  of  a  wise,  designing  agent,  in  the  powers  and  nature  of 
this  more  excellent,  and,  among  other  things,  more  obvious  to  our  notice, 
the  noblest  of  his  productions. 

"  And  were  it  not  for  the  slothful  neglect  of  the  most  to  study  them- 
selves, we  should  not  have  need  to  recount  unto  men  the  common  and 
well-known  abilities  and  excellencies  which  peculiarly  belong  to  their 
own  nature.  They  might  take  notice,  without  being  told,  that  first,  as 
to  their  intellectual  faculty,  they  have  somewhat  about  them  that  can 
think,  understand,  frame  notions  of  things ;  that  can  rectify  or  supply 
the  false  or  defective  representations  which  are  made  to  them  by  their 
external  senses  and  fancies ;  that  can  conceive  of  things  far  above  the 
reach  and  sphere  of  sense,  the  moral  good  or  evil  of  actions  or  inclina- 
tions, and  what  there  is  in  them  of  rectitude  or  pravity  ;  whereby  they 
can  animadvert,  and  cast  their  eye  inward  upon  themselves;  observe 
the  good  or  evil  acts  or  inclinations,  the  knowledge,  ignorance,  dulness, 
vigour,  tranquillity,  trouble,  and  generally,  the  perfections  or  imperfec- 
tions of  their  own  minds ;  that  can  apprehend  the  general  natures  of 
things,  the  future  existence  of  what  yet  is  not,  with  the  future  appear 
ance  of  that  which,  to  us,  as  yet,  appears  not. 

"  They  may  take  notice  of  their  power  of  comparing  things,  of  dis 
cerning  and  making  a  judgment  of  thr.ir  agreements  and  disagreements. 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  307 

their  proportions  and  dispositions  to  one  another;  of  affirming  or  deny- 
ing this  or  that,  concerning  such  or  such  things ;  and  of  pronouncing, 
with  more  or  less  confidence,  concerning  the  truth  or  falsehood  of  such 
affirmations  or  negations. 

M  And  moreover,  of  their  power  of  arguing,  and  inferring  one  thing 
from  another,  so  as  from  one  plain  and  evident  principle  to  draw  forth 
a  long  chain  of  consequences,  that  may  be  discerned  to  be  linked  there- 
with. 

"  Tliey  have  withal  to  consider  the  liberty  and  the  large  capacity  of 
the  human  will,  which,  when  it  is  itself,  rejects  the  dominion  of  any  other 
than  the  supreme  Lord's,  and  refuses  satisfaction  in  any  other  than  the 
supreme  and  most  comprehensive  good. 

"  And  upon  even  so  hasty  and  transient  a  view  of  a  thing  furnished 
with  such  powers  and  faculties,  we  have  sufficient  occasion  to  bethink 
ourselves,  How  came  such  a  thing  as  this  into  being ;  whence  did  it 
spring,  or  to  what  original  doth  it  owe  itself?  More  particularly  wo 
have  here  two  things  to  be  remembered — That,  notwithstanding  so  high 
excellencies,  the  soul  of  man  doth  yet  appear  to  be  a  caused  being,  that 
some  time  had  a  beginning — That  by  them  it  is  sufficiently  evident,  that 
it  owes  itself  to  a  wise  and  intelligent  cause." 

The  instance  of  a  watch,  chosen  by  Howe  for  the  illustration  of  his 
argument,  that  evidences  of  design,  in  any  production,  are  evidences  of 
a  designing  cause  ;  is  thus  strikingly  amplified  and  applied  by  Paley  to 
refute  the  leading  Atheistic  theories: — "  The-  mechanism  of  the  watch 
being  once  observed  and  understood,  the  inference,  we  think,  is  inevitable, 
that  the  watch  must  have  had  a  maker ;  that  there  must  have  existed, 
at  some  Lime  and  at  some  place  or  other,  an  artificer  or  artificers  who 
formed  it  for  the  purpose  which  we  find  it  actually  to  answer;  who  com- 
prehended its  construction  and  designed  its  use. 

"  Nor  would  it,  I  apprehend,  weaken  the  conclusion,  that  we  had  never 
seen  a  watch  made  ;  that  we  had  never  known  an  artist  capable  of  mak- 
ing one ;  that  we  were  altogether  incapable  of  executing  such  a  piece 
of  workmanship  ourselves,  or  of  understanding  in  what  manner  it  was 
performed :  all  this  being  no  more  than  what  is  true  of  some  exquisite 
remains  of  ancient  art,  of  some  lost  arts,  and,  to  the  generality  of  man. 
kind,  of  the  more  curious  productions  of  modern  manufacture.  Does  one 
man  in  a  million  know  how  oval  frames  are  turned?  Ignorance  of  this 
kind  exalts  our  opinion  of  the  unseen  and  unknown  artist's  skill,  if  he  be 
unseen  and  unknown,  but  raises  no  doubt  in  our  minds  of  the  existence 
and  agency  of  such  an  artist,  at  some  former  time,  and  in  some  place  or 
other.  Nor  can  I  perceive  that  it  varies  at  all  the  inference,  whether  the 
ques  ion  arise  concerning  a  human  agent,  or  concerning  an  agent  of  a  dif- 
ferent species,  or  an  agent  possessing,  in  some  respects,  a  different  nature. 

*  Neither,  secondly,  would  it  invalidate  our  conclusion,  that  the  watch 


308  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [VAKT 

sometimes  went  wrong,  or  that  it  seldom  went  exactly  right.  The  pur- 
pose of  the  machinery,  the  design,  and  the  designer,  might  be  evident, 
and  in  the  case  supposed  would  be  evident,  in  whatever  way  we  accounted 
for  the  irregularity  of  the  movement,  or  whether  we  could  account  for 
it  or  not.  It  is  not  necessary  that  a  machine  be  perfect,  in  order  to 
show  with  what  design  it  was  made  :  still  less  necessary,  where  the  only 
question  is,  whether  it  were  made  with  any  design  at  all. 

"  Nor,  thirdly,  would  it  bring  any  uncertainty  into  the  argument,  if 
there  were  a  few  parts  of  the  watch,  concerning  which  we  could  not 
discover,  or  had  not  yet  discovered  in  what  manner  they  conduced  to 
the  general  effect ;  or  even  some  parts  concerning  which  we  could  not 
ascertain,  whether  they  conduced  to  that  effect  in  any  manner  whatever. 
For,  as  to  the  first  branch  of  the  case,  if,  by  the  loss  or  disorder,  or  decay 
of  the  parts  in  question,  the  movement  of  the  watch  were  found  in  fact 
to  be  stopped,  or  disturbed,  or  retarded,  no  doubt  would  remain  in  our 
minds  as  to  the  utility  or  intention  of  these  parts,  although  we  should  be 
unable  to  investigate  the  manner  according  to  which  or  the  connection  by 
which,  the  ultimate  effect  depended  upon  their  action  or  assistance  ;  and 
the  more  complex  is  the  machine,  the  more  likely  is  this  obscurity  to 
arise.  Then,  as  to  the  second  thing  supposed,  namely,  that  there  were 
parts  which  might  be  spared  without  prejudice  to  the  movement  of  the 
watch,  and  that  we  had  proved  this  by  experiment, — these  superfluous 
parts,  even  if  we  were  completely  assured  that  they  were  such,  would 
not  vacate  the  reasoning  which  we  had  instituted  concerning  other  parts. 
The  indication  of  contrivance  remained,  with  respect  to  them,  nearly  as 
it  was  before. 

"  Nor,  fourthly,  would  any  man  in  his  senses  think  the  existence  of  the 
watch,  with  its  various  machinery,  accounted  for  by  being  told  that  it  was 
one  out  of  possible  combinations  of  material  forms ;  that  whatever  he 
had  found,  in  the  place  where  he  had  found  the  watch,  must  have  con- 
tained  some  internal  configuration  or  other ;  and  that  this  configuration 
might  be  the  structure  now  exhibited,  namely,  of  the  works  of  a  watch, 
as  well  as  a  different  structure. 

"  Nor,  fifthly,  would  it  yield  his  inquiry  more  satisfaction  to  be  answered, 
that  there  existed  in  things  a  principle  of  order,  which  had  disposed  the 
parts  of  the  watch  into  their  present  form  and  situation.  He  never  knew 
a  watch  made  by  the  principle  of  order  ;  nor  can  he  even  form  to  him- 
self an  idea  of  what  is  meant  by  a  principle  of  order,  distinct  from  the 
intelligence  of  the  watchmaker. 

"  Sixthly,  he  would  be  surprised  to  hear,  that  the  mechanism  of 
the  watch  was  no  proof  of  contrivance,  only  a  motive  to  induce  the  mind 
to  think  so. 

"  And  not  less  surprised  to  be  informed,  that  the  watch  in  his  hand 
was  nothing  more  than  the  result  of  the  laws  of  metallic  nature.     It  is 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  309 

a  perversion  of  language  to  assign  any  law,  as  the  efficient,  operative 
cause  of  any  thing.  A  law  presupposes  an  agent ;  for  it  is  only  the 
mode  according  to  which  an  agent  proceeds :  it  implies  a  power ;  for 
it  is  the  order  according  to  which  that  power  acts.  Without  this  agent, 
without  this  power,  which  are  both  distinct  from  itself,  the  law  does 
nothing, — is  nothing.  The  expression  •  the  law  of  metallic  nature,'  may 
sound  strange  and  harsh  to  a  philosophic  ear,  but  it  seems  quite  as  justi- 
fiable as  some  others  which  are  more  familiar  to  him,  such  as  •  the  law 
of  vegetable  nature,'  '  the  law  of  animal  nature,'  or  indeed  as  '  the  law 
of  nature'  in  general,  when  assigned  as  the  cause  of  phenomena,  in 
exclusion  of  agency  and  power ;  or  when  it  is  substituted  into  the  place 
of  these. 

"  Neither,  lastly,  would  our  observer  be  driven  out  of  his  conclusion, 
or  from  his  confidence  in  its  truth,  by  being  told  that  he  knew  nothing  at 
all  about  the  matter.  He  knows  enough  for  his  argument ;  he  knows 
the  utility  of  the  end  ;  he  knows  the  subserviency  and  adaptation  of  the 
means  to  the  end.  These  points  being  known,  his  ignorance  of  other 
points,  his  doubts  concerning  other  points,  affect  not  the  certainty  of  his 
reasoning.  The  consciousness  of  knowing  little  need  not  beget  a  dis- 
trust of  that  which  he  does  know. 

"  Suppose,  in  the  next  place,  that  the  person  who  found  the  watch 
should,  after  some  time,  discover  that,  in  addition  to  all  the  properties  which 
he  had  hitherto  observed  in  it,  it  possessed  the  unexpected  property  of  pro- 
ducing, in  the  course  of  its  movement,  another  watch  like  itself;  (the 
thing  is  conceivable  ;)  that  it  contained  within  it  a  mechanism,  a  system 
of  parts,  a  mould,  for  instance,  or  a  complex  adjustment  of  lathes,  files, 
and  other  tools,  evidently  and  separately  calculated  for  this  purpose  ;  let 
us  inquire  what  effect  ought  such  a  discovery  to  have  upon  his  former 
conclusion. 

"  The  first  effect  would  be  to  increase  his  admiration  of  the  contrivance, 
and  his  conviction  of  the  consummate  skill  of  the  contriver.  Whether  he 
regarded  the  object  of  the  contrivance,  the  distinct  apparatus,  the  intri- 
cate, yet  in  many  parts  intelligible,  mechanism,  by  which  it  was  carried 
on,  he  would  perceive  in  this  new  observation,  nothing  but  an  additional 
reason  for  doing  what  he  had  already  done  ;  for  referring  the  construc- 
tion of  the  watch  to  design  and  to  supreme  art.  If  that  construction 
tcifhout  this  property,  or,  which  is  the  same  thing,  before  this  property 
had  been  noticed,  proved  intention  and  art  to  have  been  employed  about 
it ;  still  more  strong  would  the  proof  appear,  when  he  came  to  the  know- 
ledge of  this  farther  property,  the  crown  and  perfection  of  all  the  rest. 

"He  would  reflect,  that  though  the  watch  before  him  were,  in  some 
sense,  the  maker  of  the  watch  which  was  fabricated  in  the  course  of  its 
movements,  yet  it  was  in  a  very  different  sense  from  that  in  which  a 
carpenter,  for  instance,  is  the  maker  of  a  chair ;  the  author  of  its  con- 


310  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

trivance,  the  cause  of  the  relation  of  its  parts  to  their  use.  With  respect 
to  these,  the  first  watch  was  no  cause  at  all  to  the  second ;  in  no  such 
sense  as  this  was  it  the  author  of  the  constitution  and  order,  either  of  the 
parts  which  the  new  watch  contained,  or  of  the  parts  by  the  aid  and 
instrumentality  of  which  it  was  produced.  We  might  possibly  say,  but 
with  great  latitude  of  expression,  that  a  stream  of  water  ground  corn  : 
but  no  latitude  of  expression  would  allow  us  to  say,  no  stretch  of  conjec- 
ture could  lead  us  to  think,  that  the  stream  of  water  built  the  mill,  though 
it  were  too  ancient  for  us  to  know  who  the  builder  was.  What  the 
stream  of  water  does  in  the  affair  is  neither  more  nor  less  than  this  :  by 
the  application  of  an  unintelligent  impulse  to  a  mechanism  previously 
arranged,  arranged  independently  of  it,  and  arranged  by  intelligence,  an 
effect  is  produced,  namely,  the  corn  is  ground.  But  the  effect  results 
from  the  arrangement.  The  force  of  the  stream  cannot  be  said  to  be 
the  cause  or  author  of  the  effect,  still  less  of  the  arrangement.  Under- 
standing and  plan  in  the  formation  of  the  mill  were  not  the  less  necessary, 
for  any  share  which  the  water  has  in  grinding  the  corn  :  yet  is  this  share 
the  same  as  that  which  the  watch  would  have  contributed  to  the  produc- 
tion of  the  new  watch,  upon  the  supposition  assumed  in  the  last  section. 
Therefore, 

"  Though  it  be  now  no  longer  probable,  that  the  individual  watch 
which  our  observer  had  found,  was  made  immediately  by  the  hand  of  an 
artificer,  yet  doth  not  this  alteration  in  any  wise  affect  the  inference, 
that  an  artificer  had  been  orginally  employed  and  concerned  in  the 
production.  The  argument  from  design  remains  as  it  was.  Marks  of 
design  and  contrivance  are  no  more  accounted  for  now  than  they  were 
before.  In  the  same  thing,  we  may  ask  for  the  cause  of  different  pro- 
perties. We  may  ask  for  the  cause  of  the  colour  of  a  body,  of  its  hard- 
ness, of  its  heat ;  and  these  causes  may  be  all  different.  We  are  now 
asking  for  the  cause  of  that  subserviency  to  a  use,  that  relation  to  an 
end  which  we  have  marked  in  the  watch  before  us.  No  answer  is 
given  to  this  question  by  telling  us  that  a  preceding  watch  produced  it. 
There  cannot  be  design  without  a  designer ;  contrivance  without  a  con- 
triver ;  order  without  choice ;  arrangement  without  any  thing  capable 
of  arranging  ;  subserviency  and  relation  to  a  purpose,  without  that  which 
could  intend  a  purpose  ;  means  suitable  to  an  end,  and  executing  their 
office  in  accomplishing  that  end,  without  the  end  ever  having  been  con- 
templated, or  the  meaDs  accommodated  to  it.  Arrangement,  disposition 
of  parts,  subserviency  of  means  to  an  end,  relation_of  instruments  to  a 
use,  imply  the  presence  of  intelligence  and  mind.  No  one,  therefore, 
can  rationally  believe,  that  the  insensible,  inanimate  watch,  from  which 
the  watch  before  us  issued,  was  the  proper  cause  of  the  mechanism  we  so 
much  admire  in  it ;  could  be  truly  said  to  have  constructed  the  instrument, 
disposed  its  parts,  assigned  their  office,  determined  their  order,  action, 


8ECONU.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  311 

and  mutual  dependency,  combined  their  several  motions  into  one 
result,  and  that  also,  a  result  connected  with  the  utilities  of  other  beings. 
All  these  properties,  therefore,  are  as  much  unaccounted  for  as  they 
were  before. 

"  Nor  is  any  thing  gained  by  running  the  difficulty  farther  back,  that 
is,  by  supposing  the  watch  before  us  to  have  been  produced  from  another 
watch,  that  from  a  former,  and  so  on  indefinitely.     Our  going  back  ever 
so  far  brings  us  no  nearer  to  the  least  degree  of  satisfaction  upon  the 
subject.     Contrivance  is  still  unaccounted  for.     We  still  want  a  con- 
triver.    A  designing  mind  is  neither  supplied  by  this  supposition,  nor 
dispensed  with.     If  the  difficulty  were  diminished  the  farther  we  went 
back,  by  going  back  indefinitely  we  might  exhaust,  it.     And  this  is  the 
only  case  to  which  this  sort  of  reasoning  applies.     Where  there  is  a 
tendency,  or,  as  we  increase  the  number  of  terms,  a  continual  approach 
toward  a  limit,  there,  by  supposing  the  number  of  terms  to  be  what  is 
called  infinite,  we  may  conceive  the  limit  to  be  attained :  but  where  there  is 
no  such  tendency  or  approach,  nothing  is  effected  by  lengthening  the 
series.     There  is  no  difference  as  to  the  point  in  question,  (whatever 
there  may  be  as  to  many  points,)  between  one  series  and  another ; 
between  a  series  which  is  finite,  and  a  series  which  is  infinite.     A  chain 
composed  of  an  infinite  number  of  links,  can  no  more  support  itself,  than 
a  chain  composed  of  a  finite  number  of  links.     And  of  this  we  are 
assured,  (though  we  never  can  have  tried  the  experiment,)  because,  by 
increasing  the  number  of  links,  from  ten,  for  instance,  to  a  hundred,  from 
a  hundred  to  a  thousand,  &c,  we  make  not  the  smallest  approach,  we 
observe  not  the  smallest  tendency  toward  self  support.     There  is  no 
difference  in  this  respect  (yet  there  may  be  a  great  difference  in  several 
respects)  between  a  chain  of  a  greater  or  less  length,  between  onecbain 
and  another,  between  one  that  is  finite  and  one  that  is  infinite.     This 
very  much  resembles  the  case  before  us.     The  machine,  which  we  are 
inspecting,  demonstrates,  by  its  construction,  contrivance,  and  design. 
Contrivance  must  have  had  a  contriver ;  design  a  designer,  whether  the 
machine  immediately  proceeded  from  another  machine  or  not.     That 
circumstance  alters  not  the  case.     That  other  machine  may,  in  like 
manner,  have  proceeded  from  a  former  machine :  nor  does  that  alter 
the  case  :  contrivance  must  have  had  a  contriver.    That  former  one  from 
one  preceding  it :  no  alteration  still :  a  contriver  is  still  necessary.    No 
tendency  is  perceived,  no  approach  toward  a  diminution  of  this  necessity. 
It  is  the  same  with  any  and  every  succession  of  these  machines ;  a  suc- 
cession of  ten,  of  a  hundred,  of  a  thousand  ;  with  one  series  as  with  ano- 
ther ;  a  series  which  is  finite  as  with  a  series  which  is  infinite.  In  whatever 
other  respects  they  may  differ,  in  this  they  do  not.     In  all  equally,  con- 
trivance and  design  are  unaccounted  for. 

"  The  question  is  not  simply,  How  came  the  first  watch  into  exist- 


312  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

ence  ?  which  question,  it  may  bo  pretended,  is  done  away  oy  supposing 
the  series  of  watches  thus  produced  from  one  another  to  have  been  infi- 
nite, and  consequently  to  have  had  no  such  first,  for  which  it  was  neces- 
sary to  provide  a  cause.  This  perhaps  would  have  been  nearly  the 
state  of  the  question,  if  nothing  had  been  before  us  but  an  unorganized, 
unmechanized  substance,  without  mark  or  indication  of  contrivance.  It 
might  be  difficult  to  show  that  such  substance  could  not  have  existed 
from  eternity,  either  in  succession,  (if  it  were  possible,  which  I  think  it 
is  not,  for  unorganized  bodies  to  spring  from  one  another,)  or  by  indi- 
Tidual  perpetuity.  But  that  is  not  the  question  now.  To  suppose  it  to 
be  so,  is  to  suppose  that  it  made  no  difference  whether  we  had  found  a 
watch  or  a  stone.  As  it  is,  the  metaphysics  of  that  question  have  no 
place ;  for  in  the  watch  which  we  are  examining,  are  seen  contrivance, 
design  ;  an  end,  a  purpose ;  means  for  the  end,  adaptation  to  the  pur- 
pose. And  the  question,  which  irresistibly  presses  upon  our  thoughts, 
is,  whence  this  contrivance  and  design  ?  The  thing  required  is  the  in- 
tending mind,  the  adapting  hand,  the  intelligence  by  which  that  hand 
was  directed.  This  question,  this  demand,  is  not  shaken  off,  by  increas- 
ing a  number  or  succession  of  substances,  destitute  of  these  properties  ; 
nor  the  more  by  increasing  that  number  to  infinity.  If  it  be  said,  that, 
upon  the  supposition  of  one  watch  being  produced  from  another  in  the 
course  of  that  other's  movements,  and  by  means  of  the  mechanism 
within  it,  we  have  a  cause  for  the  watch  in  my  hand,  viz.  the  watch 
from  which  it  proceeded,  I  deny,  that  for  the  design,  the  contrivance, 
the  suitableness  of  means  to  an  end,  the  adaptation  of  instruments  to  a 
use,  (all  which  we  discover  in  the  watch,)  we  have  any  cause  whatever. 
It  is  in  vain,  therefore,  to  assign  a  series  of  such  causes,  or  to  allege 
that  a  series  may  be  carried  back  to  infinity  ;  for  I  do  not  admit  that  we 
have  yet  any  cause  at  all  of  the  phenomena,  still  less  any  series  of 
causes  either  finite  or  infinite.  Here  is  contrivance,  but  no  contriver ; 
proofs  of  design,  but  no  designer. 

"  Our  observer  would  farther  also  reflect,  that  the  maker  of  the  watch 
before  him  was,  in  truth  and  reality,  the  maker  of  every  watch  pro- 
duced from  it ;  there  being  no  difference  (except  that  the  latter  mani- 
fests a  more  exquisite  skill)  between  the  making  of  another  watch  with 
his  own  hands,  by  the  mediation  of  files,  lathes,  chisels,  dec,  and  the 
disposing,  fixing,  and  inserting  of  these  instruments,  or  of  others  equiva- 
lent to  them,  in  the  body  of  the  watch  already  made,  in  such  a  manner, 
as  to  form  a  new  watch  in  the  course  of  the  movements  which  he  had 
given  to  the  old  one.  It  is  only  working  by  one  set  of  tools  instead  of 
another. 

"  The  conclusion  which  the  first  examination  of  the  watch,  of  its 
works,  construction  and  movement,  suggested,  was,  that  it  must  have 
had,  for  the  cause   and  author  of  that  construction,  an  artificer,  who 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  313 

understood  its  mechanism,  and  designed  its  use.  This  conclusion  is  in- 
vincible. A  second  examination  presents  us  with  a  new  discovery.  The 
watch  is  found,  in  the  course  of  its  movement,  to  produce  another  watch, 
similar  to  itself:  and  not  only  so,  but  we  perceive  in  it  a  system  of  or- 
ganization, separately  calculated  for  that  purpose.  What  effect  would 
this  discovery  have,  or  ought  it  to  have,  upon  our  former  inference  ? 
What,  as  hath  already  been  said,  but  to  increase,  beyond  measure,  our 
admiration  of  the  skill,  which  had  been  employed  in  the  formation  of 
such  a  machine  ?  Or  shall  it,  instead  of  this,  all  at  once  turn  us  round 
to  an  opposite  conclusion,  viz.  that  no  art  or  skill  whatever  has  been 
concerned  in  the  business,  although  all  other  evidences  of  art  and  skill 
remain  as  they  were,  and  this  last  and  supreme  piece  of  art  be  now 
added  to  the  rest  ?  Can  this  be  maintained  without  absurdity  ?  Yet  this 
is  Atheism." 

"  If  the  argument  is  so  powerful,  when  a  work  of  art  merely  is  made 
its  basis  ;  it  is  rendered  much  more  convincing  when  it  is  transferred  to 
the  works  of  nature ;  because  ends  more  singular  are,  in  an  infinite 
number  of  instances,  there  proposed,  and  are  accomplished  by  contri- 
vances much  more  curious  and  difficult.  In  the  quotation  above  given 
from  Howe,  the  eye,  the  parts  of  the  body  which  are  double,  and  the 
construction  of  the  spine,  are  adduced  among  others  as  striking  in- 
stances of  a  contrivance  superior  to  the  art  of  man,  and  as  evidently 
denoting  forethought  and  plan,  the  attributes  not  of  intelligence  only,  but 
of  an  intelligence  of  an  infinitely  superior  order.  These  instances  have 
been  admirably  wrought  up  by  the  master  hand  which  furnished  the  last 
quotation. 

We  begin  with  the  human  eye. 

"  The  contrivances  of  nature  surpass  the  contrivances  of  art,  in  the 
complexity,  subtilty,  and  curiosity  of  the  mechanism  ;  and  still  more,  if 
possible,  do  they  go  beyond  them  in  number  and  variety ;  yet  in  a  mul- 
titude of  cases,  are  not  less  evidently  mechanical,  not  less  evidently 
contrivances,  not  less  evidently  accommodated  to  their  end,  or  suited  to 
their  office,  than  are  the  most  perfect  productions  of  human  ingenuity. 

"  I  know  no  better  method  of  introducing  so  large  a  subject,  than  that 
of  comparing  a  single  thing  with  a  single  thing ;  an  eye,  for  example, 
with  a  telescope.  As  far  as  the  examination  of  the  instrument  goes, 
there  is  precisely  the  same  proof  that  the  eye  was  made  for  vision,  as 
there  is  that  the  telescope  was  made  for  assisting  it.  They  are  made 
upon  the  same  principles ;  both  being  adjusted  to  the  laws  by  which  the 
transmission  and  refraction  of  rays  of  light  are  regulated.  I  speak  not 
of  the  origin  of  the  laws  themselves  ;  but  such  laws  being  fixed,  the  con. 
struction,  in  both  cases,  is  adapted  to  them.  For  instance  ;  these  laws 
require,  in  order  to  produce  the  same  effect,  that  the  rays  of  light,  in 
passing  from  water  into  the  eye,  should  be  refracted  by  a  more  convex 


314  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

surface  than  when  it  passes  out  of  air  into  the  eye.  Accordingly  we 
find,  that  the  eye  of  a  fish,  in  that  part  of  it  called  the  crystalline  lens, 
is  much  rounder  than  the  eye  of  terrestrial  animals.  What  plainer  ma- 
nifestation  of  design  can  there  be  than  this  difference  ?  What  could  a 
mathematical  instrument  maker  have  done  more,  to  show  his  knowledge 
of  his  principle,  his  application  of  that  knowledge,  his  suiting  of  his 
means  to  his  end ;  I  will  not  say,  to  display  the  compass  or  excellency 
of  his  skill  and  art,  for  in  these  all  comparison  is  indecorous,  but  to 
testify  counsel,  choice,  consideration,  purpose  ? 

"  To  some  it  may  appear  a  difference  sufficient  to  destroy  all  simili- 
tude between  the  eye  and  the  telescope,  that  the  one  is  a  perceiving 
organ,  the  other  an  unperceiving  instrument.  The  fact  is,  that  they 
are  both  instruments.  And,  as  to  the  mechanism,  at  least  as  to  mechan- 
ism being  employed,  and  even  as  to  the  kind  of  it,  this  circumstance 
varies  not  the  analogy  at  all :  for  observe,  what  the  constitution  of  the 
eye  is.  It  is  necessary,  in  order  to  produce  distinct  vision,  that  an 
image  or  picture  of  the  object  be  formed  at  the  bottom  of  the  eye. 
Whence  this  necessity  arises,  or  how  the  picture  is  connected  with  the 
sensation,  or  contributes  to  it,  it  may  be  difficult,  nay,  we  will  confess, 
if  you  please,  impossible  for  us  to  search  out.  But  the  present  question 
is  not  concerned  in  the  inquiry.  It  may  be  true,  that,  in  this,  and  in 
other  instances,  we  trace  mechanical  contrivance  a  certain  way ;  and 
that  then  we  come  to  something  which  is  not  mechanical,  or  which  is 
inscrutable.  But  this  affects  not  the  certainty  of  our  investigation,  as 
far  as  we  have  gone.  The  difference  between  an  animal  and  an  auto- 
matic statue,  consists  in  this, — that  in  the  animal,  we  trace  the  mechan- 
ism to  a  certain  point,  and  then  we  are  stopped  ;  either  the  mechanism 
becoming  too  subtile  for  our  discernment,  or  something  else  beside  the 
known  laws  of  mechanism  taking  place  ;  whereas,  in  the  automaton,  for 
the  comparatively  few  motions  of  which  it  is  capable,  we  trace  the  me- 
chanism throughout.  But,  up  to  the  limit,  the  reasoning  is  as  clear  and 
certain  in  the  one  case  as  the  other.  In  the  example  before  us,  it  is  a 
matter  of  certainty,  because  it  is  a  matter  which  experience  and  obser- 
vation demonstrate,  that  the  formation  of  an  image  at  the  bottom  of  the 
eye  is  necessary  to  perfect  vision.  The  image  itself  can  be  shown. 
Whatever  affects  the  distinctness  of  the  image,  affects  the  distinctness 
of  the  vision.  The  formation  then  of  such  an  image  being  necessary 
(no  matter  how)  to  the  sense  of  sight,  and  to  the  exercise  of  that  sense, 
the  apparatus  by  which  it  is  formed  is  constructed  and  put  together,  not 
only  with  infinitely  more  art,  but  upon  the  self-same  principles  of  art, 
as  in  the  telescope  or  camera  obscura.  The  perception  arising  from 
the  image  may  be  laid  out  of  the  question ;  for  the  production  of  the 
image,  these  are  instruments  of  the  same  kind.  The  end  is  the  same  ; 
the  means  are  the  same.     The  purpose  in  both  is  alike ;  the  contrivance 


SElOAO.j  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  315 

for  accomplishing  that  purpose  is  in  both  alike.  The  lenses  of  the  tele- 
scope, and  the  humours  of  the  eye,  bear  a  complete  resemblance  to  one 
another,  in  their  figure,  their  position,  and  in  their  power  over  the  rays 
of  light,  viz.  in  bringing  each  pencil  to  a  point  at  the  right  distance  from 
the  lens ;  namely,  in  the  eye,  at  the  exact  place  where  the  membrane 
is  spread  to  receive  it.  How  is  it  possible,  under  circumstances  of  such 
close  affinity,  and  under  the  operation  of  an  equal  evidence,  to  exclude 
contrivance  from  the  one  ;  yet  to  acknowledge  the  proof  of  contrivance 
having  been  employed,  as  the  plainest  and  clearest  of  all  propositions  in 
the  other? 

"  The  resemblance  between  the  two  cases  is  still  more  accurate,  and 
obtains  in  more  points  than  we  have  yet  represented,  or  than  we  are,  on 
the  first  view  of  the  subject,  aware  of.  In  dioptric  telescopes  there  is 
an  imperfection  of  this  nature.  Pencils  of  light,  in  passing  through  glass 
lenses,  are  separated  into  different  colours,  thereby  tinging  the  object, 
especially  the  edges  of  it,  as  if  it  were  viewed  through  a  prism.  To 
correct  this  inconvenience  had  been  long  a  desideratum  in  the  art.  At 
last  it  came  into  the  mind  of  a  sagacious  optician,  to  inquire  how  this 
matter  was  managed  in  the  eye  ;  in  which  there  was  exactly  the  same 
difficulty  to  contend  with  as  in  the  telescope.  His  observation  taught 
him,  that,  in  the  eye,  the  evil  was  cured  by  combining  together  lenses 
composed  of  different  substances,  i.  e.  of  substances  which  possessed 
different  refracting  powers.  Our  artist  borrowed  from  thence  his  hint ; 
and  produced  a  correction  of  the  defect  by  imitating,  in  glasses  made 
from  different  materials,  the  effects  of  the  different  humours  through 
which  the  rays  of  light  pass  before  they  reach  the  bottom  of  the  eye. 
Could  this  be  in  the  eye  without  purpose,  which  suggested  to  the  opti- 
cian the  only  effectual  means  of  attaining  that  purpose  ? 

"  But  farther ;  there  are  other  points,  not  so  much  perhaps  of  strict 
resemblance  between  the  two,  as  of  superiority  of  the  eye  over  the 
telescope ;  yet  of  a  superiority,  which,  being  founded  in  the  laws  that 
regulate  both,  may  furnish  topics  of  fair  and  just  comparison.  Two 
things  were  wanted  to  the  eye,  which  were  not  wanted,  at  least  in  the 
Bame  degree,  to  the  telescope  ;  and  these  were,  the  adaptation  of  the 
organ,  first,  to  different  degrees  of  light ;  and  secondly,  to  the  vast  diver- 
sity of  distance  at  which  objects  are  viewed  by  the  naked  eye,  viz.  from 
a  few  inches  to  as  many  miles.  These  difficulties  present  not  them- 
selves to  the  maker  of  the  telescope.  He  wants  all  the  light  he  can  get ; 
and  he  never  directs  his  instrument  to  objects  near  at  hand.  In  the  eye, 
both  these  cases  were  to  be  provided  for ;  and  for  the  purpose  of  pro- 
viding for  them  a  subtile  and  appropriate  mechanism  is  introduced. 

"  In  order  to  exclude  excess  of  light,  when  it  is  excessive,  and  to  ren- 
der objects  visible  under  obscurer  degrees  of  it,  when  no  more  can  be 
had,  the  hole  or  aperture  in  the  eye,  through  which  the  light  enters,  is 


316  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

so  formed,  as  to  contract  or  dilate  itself  for  the  purpose  of  admitting  a 
greater  or  less  number  of  rays  at  the  same  time.  The  chamber  of  the 
eye  is  a  camera  obscura,  which,  when  the  light  is  too  small,  can  enlarge 
its  opening ;  when  too  strong,  can  again  contract  it  ;  and  that  without 
any  other  assistance  than  that  of  its  own  exquisite  machinery.  It  is 
farther  also,  in  the  human  subject,  to  be  observed,  that  this  hole  in  the 
eye,  which  we  call  the  pupil,  under  all  its  different  dimensions,  retains 
its  exact  circular  shape.  This  is  a  structure  extremely  artificial.  Let 
an  artist  only  try  to  execute  the  same.  He  will  find  that  his  threads 
and  strings  must  be  disposed  with  great  consideration  and  contrivance, 
to  make  a  circle,  which  shall  continually  change  its  diameter,  yet  pre- 
serve  its  form.  This  is  done  in  the  eye  by  an  application  of  fibres, 
i.  e.  of  strings,  similar,  in  their  position  and  action,  to  what  an  artist 
would  and  must  employ,  if  he  had  the  same  piece  of  workmanship  to 
perform. 

"  The  second  difficulty  which  has  been  stated,  was  the  suiting  of  the 
same  organ  to  the  perception  of  objects  that  lie  near  at  hand,  within  a 
few  inches,  we  will  suppose,  of  the  eye,  and  of  objects  which  were  placed 
at  a  considerable  distance  from  it,  that,  for  example,  of  as  many  fur- 
longs :  (I  speak  in  both  cases  of  the  distance  at  which  distinct  vision 
can  be  exercised.)  Now  this,  according  to  the  principles  of  optics,  that 
is,  according  to  the  laws  by  which  the  transmission  of  light  is  regulated 
(and  these  laws  are  fixed,)  could  not  be  done  without  the  organ  itself 
undergoing  an  alteration,  and  receiving  an  adjustment  that  might  cor- 
respond  with  the  exigency  of  the  case,  that  is  to  say,  with  the  different 
inclination  to  one  another  under  which  the  rays  of  light  reached  it. 
Rays  issuing  from  points  placed  at  a  small  distance  from  the  eye,  and 
which  consequently  must  enter  the  eye  in  a  spreading  or  diverging 
order,  cannot,  by  the  same  optical  instrument  in  the  same  state,  be 
brought  to  a  point,  i.  e.  be  made  to  form  an  image,  in  the  same  place 
with  rays  proceeding  from  objects  situated  at  a  much  greater  distance, 
and  which  rays  arrive  at  the  eye  in  directions  nearly,  and  physically 
speaking,  parallel.  It  requires  a  rounder  lens  to  do  it.  The  point  of 
concourse  behind  the  lens  must  fall  critically  upon  the  retina,  or  the 
vision  is  confused ;  yet,  other  things  remaining  the  same,  this  point, 
by  the  immutable  properties  of  light,  is  carried  farther  back,  when  the 
rays  proceed  from  a  near  object,  than  when  they  are  sent  from  one  that 
is  remote.  A  person  who  was  using  an  optical  instrument,  would  manage 
this  matter  by  changing,  as  the  occasion  required,  his  lens  or  his  tele, 
scope ;  or  by  adjusting  the  distances  of  his  glasses  with  his  hand  or  hib 
screw  :  but  how  is  it  to  be  managed  in  the  eye  ?  What  the  alteration 
was,  or  in  what  part  of  the  eye  it  took  place,  or  by  what  means  it  was 
effected,  (for,  if  the  known  laws  which  govern  the  refraction  of  light  be 
maintained,  some  alteration  in  the  state  of  the  organ  there  must  be,)  had 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  317 

long  formed  a  subject  of  inquiry  and  conjecture.  The  change,  though 
sufficient  for  the  purpose,  is  so  minute  as  to  elude  ordinary  observation. 
Some  very  late  discoveries,  deduced  from  a  laborious  and  most  accurate 
inspection  of  the  structure  and  operation  of  the  organ,  seem  at  length  to 
have  ascertained  the  mechanical  alteration  which  the  parts  of  the  eye 
undergo.  It  is  found,  that  by  the  action  of  certain  muscles,  called  the 
straight  muscles,  and  which  action  is  the  most  advantageous  that  could 
be  imagined  for  the  purpose, — it  is  found,  I  say,  that,  whenever  the  eye 
is  directed  to  a  near  object,  three  changes  are  produced  in  it  at  the 
same  time,  all  severally  contributing  to  the  adjustment  required.  The 
cornea,  or  outermost  coat  of  the  eye,  is  rendered  more  round  and  pro- 
minent ;  the  crystalline  lens  underneath  is  pushed  forward ;  and  the 
axis  of  vision,  as  the  depth  of  the  eye  is  called,  is  elongated.  These 
changes  in  the  eye  vary  its  power  over  the  rays  of  light  in  such  a  man- 
ner  and  degree  as  to  produce  exactly  the  effect  which  is  wanted,  viz. 
the  formation  of  an  image  upon  the  retina,  whether  the  rays  come  to  the 
eye  in  a  state  of  divergency,  which  is  the  case  when  the  object  is  near 
to  the  eye,  or  come  parallel  to  one  another,  which  is  the  case  when  the 
object  is  placed  at  a  distance.  Can  any  thing  be  more  decisive  of  con- 
trivance  than  this  is  ?  The  most  secret  laws  of  optics  must  have  been 
known  to  the  author  of  a  structure  endowed  with  such  a  capacity  of 
change.  It  is,  as  though  an  optician,  when  he  had  a  nearer  object  to 
view,  should  rectify  his  instrument  by  putting  in  another  glass,  at  the 
same  time  drawing  out  also  his  tube  to  a  different  length. 

"  In  considering  vision  as  achieved  by  the  means  of  an  image  formed 
at  the  bottom  of  the  eye,  we  can  never  reflect  without  wonder  upon  the 
smallness,  yet  correctness,  of  the  picture,  the  subtilty  of  the  touch,  the 
fineness  of  the  lines.  A  landscape  of  five  or  six  square  leagues  is 
brought  into  a  space  of  half  an  inch  diameter ;  yet  the  multitude  of  ob- 
jects which  it  contains  are  all  preserved  ;  are  all  discriminated  in  their 
magnitudes,  positions,  figures,  colours.  The  prospect  from  Hampstead 
hill  is  compressed  into  the  compass  of  a  sixpence,  yet  circumstantially 
represented.  A  stage  coach  travelling  at  its  ordinary  speed  for  half  an 
hour,  passes  in  the  eye,  only  over  one  twelfth  of  an  inch,  yet  is  this  change 
of  place  in  the  image  distinctly  perceived  throughout  its  whole  progress  ; 
for  it  is  only  by  means  of  that  perception  that  the  motion  of  the  coach 
itself  is  made  sensible  to  the  eye.  If  any  thing  can  abate  our  admira- 
tion of  the  smallness  of  the  visual  tablet  compared  with  the  extent  of 
vision,  it  is  a  reflection  which  the  view  of  nature  leads  us,  every  hour, 
to  make,  viz.  that  in  the  hands  of  the  Creator,  great  and  little  are 
nothing." 

On  the  parts  of  the  body  which  are  double,  adduced  by  Howe,  as 
proofs  of  contrivance,  our  author  farther  remarks  : — 

"The  human,  or  indeed  the  animal  frame,  considered  as  a  mass  or 


318  THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES.  [PART 

assemblage,  exhibits  in  its  composition  three  properties,  which  have 
long  struck  my  mind,  as  indubitable  evidences,  not  only  of  design,  but  of 
a  great  deal  of  attention  and  accuracy  in  prosecuting  the  design. 

"  The  first  is,  the  exact  correspondency  of  the  two  sidbs  of  the  same 
animal :  the  right  hand  answering  to  the  left,  leg  to  leg,  eye  to  eye,  one 
side  of  the  countenance  to  the  other ;  and  with  a  precision,  to  imitate 
which,  in  any  tolerable  degree,  forms  one  of  the  difficulties  of  statuary, 
and  requires,  on  the  part  of  the  artist,  a  constant  attention  to  this  pro- 
perty of  his  work,  distinct  from  every  other. 

"  It  :s  the  most  difficult  thing  that  can  be,  to  get  a  wig  made  even  ; 
yet  how  seldom  is  ihefcue  awry  1  And  what  care  is  taken  that  it  should 
not  be  so,  the  anatomy  of  its  bones  demonstrates.  The  upper  part  of 
the  face  is  composed  of  thirteen  bones,  six  on  each  side,  answering  each 
to  each,  and  the  thirteenth  without  a  fellow,  in  the  middle  ;  the  lower 
part  of  the  face  is  in  like  manner  composed  of  six  bones,  three  on  each 
side,  respectively  corresponding,  and  the  lower  jaw  in  the  centre.  In 
building  an  arch,  could  more  be  done  in  order  to  make  the  curve  true, 
i.  e.  the  parts  equidistant  from  the  middle,  alike  in  figure  and  position? 

"  The  exact  resemblance  of  the  eyes,  considering  how  compounded 
this  organ  is  in  its  structure,  how  various  and  how  delicate  are  the  shades 
of  colour  with  which  its  iris  is  tinged,  how  differently,  as  to  effect  upon 
appearance,  the  eye  may  be  mounted  in  its  socket,  and  how  differently  in 
different  heads  eyes  actually  are  set,  is  a  property  of  animal  bodies  much 
to  be  admired.  Of  ten  thousand  eyes,  I  don't  know  that  it  would  be 
possible  to  match  one,  except  with  its  own  fellow  ;  or  to  distribute  them 
into  suitable  pairs  by  any  other  selection  than  that  which  obtains. 

"  The  next  circumstance  to  be  remarked  is,  that  while  the  cavities  of 
the  body  are  so  configurated,  as,  externally,  to  exhibit  the  most  exact  cor- 
respondency of  the  opposite  sides,  the  contents  of  these  cavities  have  no 
such  correspondency.  A  line  drawn  down  the  middle  of  the  breast 
divides  the  thorax  into  two  sides  exactly  similar  ;  yet  these  two  sides 
inclose  very  different  contents.  The  heart  lies  on  the  left  side ;  a  lobe 
of  the  lungs  on  the  right ;  balancing  each  other,  neither  in  size  nor 
shape.  The  same  thing  holds  of  the  abdomen.  The  liver  lies  on  the 
right  side,  without  any  similar  viscus  opposed  to  it  on  the  left.  The 
spleen  indeed  is  situated  over  against  the  liver ;  but  agreeing  with  the 
liver  neither  in  bulk  nor  form.  There  is  no  equipollency  between 
these.  The  stomach  is  a  vessel,  both  irregular  in  its  shape,  and  oblique 
in  its  position.  The  foldings  and  doublings  of  the  intestines  do  not  pro. 
sent  a  parity  of  sides.  Yet  that  symmetry  which  depends  upon  the 
correlation  of  the  sides,  is  externally  preserved  throughout  the  whole 
trunk ;  and  is  the  more  remarkable  in  the  lower  parts  of  it,  as  the  inte- 
guments are  soft ;  and  the  shape,  consequently,  is  not,  as  the  thorax  is 
by  its  ribs,  reduced  by  natural  stays.     It  is  evident,  therefore,  that  the 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  319 

external  proportion  does  not  arise  from  any  equality  in  the  shape  or 
pressure  of  the  internal  contents.  What  is  it  indeed  but  a  correction  of 
inequalities?  an  adjustment,  by  mutual  compensation,  of  anomalous 
forms  into  a  regular  congeries  7  the  effect,  in  a  word,  of  artful,  and,  if 
we  might  be  permitted  so  to  speak,  of  studied  collocation  ? 

"Similar  also  to  this  is  the  third  observation;  that  an  internal  ine- 
qua.it  v  in  the  feeding  vessels  is  so  managed,  as  to  produce  no  inequality 
in  parts  which  were  intended  to  correspond.  The  right  arm  answers 
accurately  to  the  left,  both  in  size  and  shape ;  but  the  arterial  branches, 
which  supply  the  two  arms,  do  not  go  off  from  their  trunk,  in  a  pair,  in 
the  same  •  manner,  at  the  same  place,  or  at  the  same  angle.  Under 
which  want  of  similitude,  it  is  very  difficult  to  conceive  how  the  same 
quantity  of  blood  should  be  pushed  through  each  artery  ;  yet  the  result 
is  right ;  the  two  limbs  which  are  nourished  by  them  perceive  no  differ- 
ence of  supply,  no  effects  of  excess  or  deficiency. 

"  Concerning  the  difference  of  manner,  in  which  the  subclavian  and 
carotid  arteries,  upon  the  different  sides  of  the  body,  separate  themselves 
from  the  aorta,  Cheselden  seems  to  have  thought,  that  the  advantage 
which  the  left  gain  by  going  off  at  a  much  acuter  angle  than  the  right, 
is  made  up  to  the  right  by  their  going  off  together  in  one  branch.  It 
is  very  possible  that  this  may  be  the  compensating  contrivance ;  and  if 
it  be  so,  how  curious,  how  hydrostatical !" 

The  construction  of  the  spine,  another  of  Howe's  illustrations,  is  thus 
exemplified  : — 

"The  spine  or  back  bone  is  a  chain  of  joints  of  very  wonderful  con- 
struction.  Various,  difficult,  and  almost  inconsistent  offices  were  to  be 
executed  by  the  same  instrument.  It  was  to  be  firm,  yet  flexible  :  now 
I  know  of  no  chain  made  by  art,  which  is  both  these;  for  by  firmness 
I  mean,  not  only  strength,  but  stability  ;  firm,  to  support  the  erect  posi- 
tion of  the  body  ;  flexible,  to  allow  of  the  bending  of  the  trunk  in  all 
degrees  of  curvature.  It  was  farther  also,  which  is  another,  and  quite 
a  distinct  purpose  from  the  rest,  to  become  a  pipe  or  conduit  for  the 
safe  conveyance  from  the  brain  of  the  most  important  fluid  of  the  ani- 
mal frame,  that,  namely,  upon  which  all  voluntary  motion  depends,  the 
spinal  marrow  ;  a  substance,  not  only  of  the  first  necessity  to  action,  if 
not  to  life,  but  of  a  nature  so  delicate  and  tender,  so  susceptible,  and  so 
impatient  of  injury,  as  that  any  unusual  pressure  upon  it,  or  any  consider- 
able obstruction  of  its  course,  is  followed  by  paralysis  or  death.  Now 
the  spine  was  not  only  to  furnish  the  main  trunk  for  the  passage  of  the 
medullary  substance  from  the  brain,  but  to  give  out,  in  the  course  of 
its  progress,  small  pipes  therefrom,  which  being  afterward  indefinitely 
subdivided,  might,  under  the  name  of  nerves,  distribute  this  exquisite 
supply  to  every  part  of  the  body.  The  same  spine  was  also  to  serve 
another  use  not  less  wanted  than  the  preceding,  viz.  to  afford  a  fulcrum, 


320  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

stay,  or  basis,  (or,  more  properly  speaking,  a  series  of  these,)  for  the 
insertion  of  the  muscles  which  are  spread  over  the  truii*.  of  the  body  ; 
in  which  trunk  there  are  not,  as  in  the  limbs,  cylindrical  bones,  to  which 
they  can  be  fastened :  and,  likewise,  which  is  a  similar  use,  to  furnish 
a  support  for  the  ends  of  the  ribs  to  rest  upon. 

"  Bespeak  of  a  workman  a  piece  of  mechanism  which  shall  comprise 
all  these  purposes,  and  let  him  set  about  to  contrive  it ;  let  him  try  bis 
skill  upon  it ;  let  him  feel  the  difficulty  of  accomplishing  the  task,  before 
he  be  told  how  the  same  thing  is  effected  in  the  animal  frame.  Nothing 
will  enable  him  to  judge  so  well  of  the  wisdom  which  has  been  em- 
ployed ;  nothing  will  dispose  him  to  think  of  it  so  truly.  First,  for  the 
firmness,  yet  flexibility  of  the  spine,  it  is  composed  of  a  great  number 
of  bones  (in  the  human  subject  of  twenty-four)  joined  to  one  another, 
and  compacted  together  by  broad  bases.  The  breadth  of  the  bases 
upon  which  the  parts  severally  rest,  and  the  closeness  of  the  junction, 
give  to  the  chain  its  firmness  and  stability ;  the  number  of  parts,  and 
consequent  frequency  of  joints,  its  flexibility.  Which  flexibility,  we  may 
also  observe,  varies  in  different  parts  of  the  chain  ;  is  least  in  the  back, 
where  strength  more  than  flexure  is  wanted  ;  greater  in  the  loins,  which 
it  was  necessary  should  be  more  supple  than  the  back ;  and  the  greatest 
of  all  in  the  neck,  for  the  free  motion  of  the  head.  Then,  secondly,  in 
order  to  afford  a  passage  for  the  descent  of  the  medullary  substance, 
each  of  these  bones  is  bored  through  in  the  middle  in  such  a  manner,  as 
that,  when  put  together,  the  hole  in  one  bone  falls  into  a  line,  and  cor- 
responds with  the  holes  in  the  two  bones  contiguous  to  it.  By  which 
means,  the  perforated  pieces,  when  joined,  form  an  entire,  close,  unin- 
terrupted channel ;  at  least,  while  the  spine  is  upright  and  at  rest.  But, 
as  a  settled  posture  is  inconsistent  with  its  use,  a  great  difficulty  still 
remained,  which  was  to  prevent  the  vertebra}  shifting  upon  one  another, 
so  as  to  break  the  line  of  the  canal  as  often  as  the  body  moves  or 
twists  ;  or  the  joints  gaping  externally,  whenever  the  body  is  bent  for- 
ward, and  the  spine  thereupon  made  to  take  the  form  of  a  bow.  These 
dangers,  which  are  mechanical,  are  mechanically  provided  againat. 
The  vertebrae,  by  means  of  their  processes  and  projections,  and  of  the 
articulations  which  some  of  these  form  with  one  another  at  their  ex- 
tremities, are  so  locked  in,  and  confined  as  to  maintain  in  what  are 
called  the  bodies,  or  broad  surfaces  of  the  bones,  the  relative  position 
nearly  unaltered ;  and  to  throw  the  change  and  the  pressure  produced 
by  flexion,  almost  entirely  upon  the  intervening  cartilages,  the  springi- 
ness and  yielding  nature  of  whose  substance  admits  of  all  the  motion 
which  is  necessary  to  be  performed  upon  them,  without  any  chasm  being 
produced  by  a  separation  of  the  parts.  I  say  of  all  the  motion  which 
is  necessary ;  for  although  we  bend  our  backs  to  every  degree  almost 
of  inclination,  the  motion  of  each  vertebra  is  very  small ;  such  is  the 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  321 

advantage  which  we  receive  from  the  chain  being  composed  of  so  many 
links,  the  spine  of  so  many  bones.  Had  it  consisted  of  three  or  four 
bones  only,  in  bending  the  body  the  spinal  marrow  must  have  been 
bruised  at  every  angle.  The  reader  need  not  be  told  that  these  inter- 
vening cartilages  are  gristles ;  and  he  may  see  them  in  perfection  in  a 
loin  of  veal.  Their  form  also  favours  the  same  intention.  They  are 
thicker  before  than  behind ;  so  that,  when  we  stoop  forward,  the  com- 
pressible substance  of  the  cartilage,  yielding  in  its  thicker  and  anterior 
part  to  the  force  which  squeezes  it,  brings  the  surfaces  of  the  adjoining 
vertebrae  nearer  to  the  being  parallel  with  one  another  than  they  were 
before,  instead  of  increasing  the  inclination  of  their  planes,  which  must 
have  occasioned  a  fissure,  or  opening  between  them.  Thirdly,  for  the 
medullary  canal  giving  out  in  its  course,  and  in  a  convenient  order,  a 
supply  of  nerves  to  different  parts  of  the  body,  notches  are  made  in  the 
upper  and  lower  edge  of  every  vertebra ;  two  on  each  edge ;  equidis- 
tant on  each  side  from  the  middle  line  of  the  back.  When  the  vertebrae 
are  put  together,  these  notches,  exactly  fitting,  form  small  holes,  through 
which  the  nerves,  at  each  articulation,  issue  out  in  pairs,  in  order  to  send 
their  branches  to  every  part  of  the  body,  and  with  an  equal  bounty  to 
both  sides  of  the  body.  The  fourth  purpose  assigned  to  the  same  in- 
strument, is  the  insertion  of  the  bases  of  the  muscles,  and  the  support 
of  the  ends  of  the  ribs ;  and  for  this  fourth  purpose,  especially  the 
former  part  of  it,  a  figure,  specifically  suited  to  the  design,  and  unneces- 
sary for  the  other  purposes,  is  given  to  the  constituent  bones.  While  they 
are  plain,  and  round,  and  smooth,  toward  the  front,  where  any  roughness 
or  projection  might  have  wounded  the  adjacent  viscera,  they  run  out, 
behind,  and  on  each  side,  into  long  processes,  to  which  processes  the 
muscles  necessary  to  the  motions  of  the  trunk  are  fixed  ;  and  fixed  with 
such  art,  that  while  the  vertebra)  supply  a  basis  for  the  muscles,  the 
muscles  help  to  keep  these  bones  in  their  position,  or  by  their  tendons  to 
tie  them  together. 

"That  most  important,  however,  and  general  property,  viz.  the 
strength  of  the  compages,  and  the  security  against  luxation,  was  to  be 
still  more  specially  consulted ;  for  where  so  many  joints  were  con- 
cerned, and  where,  in  every  one,  derangement  would  have  been  fatal,  it 
became  a  subject  of  studious  precaution.  For  this  purpose,  the  vertebrae 
are  articulated,  that  is,  the  movable  joints  between  them  are  formed  by 
means  of  those  projections  of  their  substance,  which  we  have  mentioned 
under  the  name  of  processes  ;  and  these  so  lock  in  with,  and  overwrap  one 
another,  as  to  secure  the  body  of  the  vertebra,  not  only  from  accidentally 
slipping,  but  even  from  being  pushed  out  of  its  place  by  any  violence 
short  of  that  which  would  break  the  bone." 

Instances  of  design  and  wonderful  contrivance  are  as  numerous  as 
there  are  organized  bodies  in  nature,  and  as  there  are  relations  between 

Vol.  1.  21 


322  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

bodies  which  are  not  organized.  The  subject  is,  therefore,  inexhaustible. 
The  cases  stated  are  sufficient  for  the  illustration  of  this  species  of  ar- 
gument for  the  existence  of  an  intelligent  First  Cause.  Many  others 
are  given  with  great  force  and  interest  in  the  Natural  Theology  of  Paley, 
from  which  the  above  quotations  have  been  made ;  but  his  chapter  on 
the  Personality  of  the  Deity  contains  applications  of  the  argument  from 
design,  too  important  to  be  overlooked.  The  same  course  of  reasoning 
may  be  traced  in  many  other  writers,  but  by  none  has  it  been  expressed 
with  so  much  clearness  and  felicity. 

"  Contrivance,  if  established,  appears  to  me  to  prove  every  thing 
which  we  wish  to  prove.  Among  other  things  it  proves  the  personality 
of  the  Deity,  as  distinguished  from  what  is  sometimes  called  nature, 
sometimes  called  a  principle  ;  which  terms,  in  the  mouths  of  those  who 
use  them  philosophically,  seem  to  be  intended,  to  admit  and  to  express 
an  efficacy,  but  to  exclude  and  to  deny  a  personal  agent.  Now  that 
which  can  contrive,  which  can  design,  must  be  a  person.  These  ca- 
pacities constitute  personality,  for  they  imply  consciousness  and  thought. 
They  require  that  which  can  perceive  an  end  or  purpose ;  as  well  as 
the  power  of  providing  means,  and  of  directing  them  to  their  end. 
They  require  a  centre  in  which  perceptions  unite,  and  from  which 
volitions  flow  ;  which  is  mind.  The  acts  of  a  mind  prove  the  existence 
of  a  mind  ;  and  in  whatever  a  mind  resides,  is  a  person. 

"  Of  this  we  are  certain,  that,  whatever  the  Deity  be,  neither  the 
universe,  nor  any  part  of  it  which  we  see,  can  be  he.  The  universe 
itself  is  merely  a  collective  name :  its  parts  are  all  which  are  real,  or 
which  are  things.  Now  inert  matter  is  out  of  the  question ;  and  or- 
ganized substances  include  marks  of  contrivance.  But  whatever  includes 
marks  of  contrivance,  whatever,  in  its  constitution,  testifies  design,  neces- 
sarily carries  us  to  something  beyond  itself,  to  some  other  being,  to  a 
designer  prior  to,  and  out  of  itself.  No  animal,  for  instance,  can  have 
contrived  its  own  limbs  and  senses ;  can  have  been  the  author  to  itself 
of  the  design  with  which  they  were  constructed.  That  supposition 
involves  all  the  absurdity  of  self  creation,  i.  e.  of  acting  without  existing. 
Nothing  can  be  God  which  is  ordered  by  a  wisdom  and  a  will  which 
itself  is  void  of;  which  is  indebted  for  any  of  its  properties  to  contriv- 
ance ab  extra.  The  not  having  that  in  his  nature  which  requires  the 
....ertion  of  another  prior  being,  (which  property  is  sometimes  called 
self  sufficiency,  and  sometimes  self  comprehension,)  appertains  to  the 
Deity,  as  his  essential  distinction,  and  removes  his  nature  from  that  of 
all  things  which  we  see.  Which  consideration  contains  the  answer  to 
a  question  that  has  sometimes  been  asked,  namely,  Why,  since  some- 
thing or  other  must  have  existed  from  eternity,  may  not  the  present 
universe  be  that  something?  The  contrivance  perceived  in  it,  proves 
mat  to  be  impossible.     Nothing  contrived  can,  in  a  strict  and  proper 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  323 

sense,  be  eternal,  forasmuch  as  the  contriver  must  have  existed  before 
the  contrivance. 

"  We  have  already  noticed,  and  we  must  here  notice  again,  the  mis- 
application of  the  term  '  law,'  and  the  mistake  concerning  the  idea  which 
that  term  expresses  in  physics,  whenever  such  idea  is  made  to  take  the 
place  of  power,  and  still  more  of  an  intelligent  power,  and,  as  such,  to 
be  assigned  forUhe  cause  of  any  thing,  or  of  any  property  of  any  thing 
that  exists.  This  is  what  we  are  secretly  apt  to  do  when  we  speak  of 
organized  bodies  (plants,  for  instance,  or  animals)  owing  their  produc- 
tion, their  form,  their  growth,  their  qualities,  their  beauty,  their  use,  to 
any  law,  or  laws  of  nature  ;  and  when  we  are  contented  to  sit  down  with 
that  answer  to  our  inquiries  concerning  them.  I  say  once  more,  that  it 
is  a  perversion  of  language  to  assign  any  law,  as  the  efficient  operative 
cause  of  any  thing.  A  law  presupposes  an  agent,  for  it  is  only  the 
mode  according  to  which  an  agent  proceeds ;  it  implies  a  power,  for  it 
is  the  order  according  to  which  that  power  acts.  Without  this  agent, 
without  this  power,  \vhich  are  both  distinct  from  itself,  the  <  law'  does 
nothing ;  is  nothing. 

"  What  has  been  said  concerning  '  law,'  holds  true  of  mechanism. 
Mechanism  is  not  itself  power.  Mechanism  without  power  can  do 
nothing.  Let  a  watch  be  contrived  and  constructed  ever  so  ingeniously  ; 
be  its  parts  ever  so  many,  ever  so  complicated,  ever  so  finely  wrought, 
or  artificially  put  together,  it  cannot  go  without  a  weight  or  spring,  i.  e. 
without  a  force  independent  of,  and  ulterior  to  its  mechanism.  The 
spring,  acting  at  the  centre,  will  produce  different  motions  and  different 
results,  according  to  the  variety  of  the  intermediate  mechanism.  One 
and  the  self-same  spring,  acting  in  one  and  the  same  manner,  viz.  by 
simply  expanding  itself,  may  be  the  cause  of  a  hundred  different,  and 
all  useful  movements,  if  a  hundred  different  and  well-devised  sets  of 
wheels  be  placed  between  it  and  the  final  effect,  e.  g.  may  point  out  the 
hour  of  the  day,  the  day  of  the  month,  the  age  of  the  moon,  the  position 
of  the  planets,  the  cycle  of  the  years,  and  many  other  serviceable 
notices ;  and  these  movements  may  fulfil  their  purposes  with  more  or 
less  perfection,  according  as  the  mechanism  is  better  or  worse  con- 
trived, or  better  or  worse  executed,  or  in  a  better  or  worse  state  of 
repair  ;  but  in  all  cases,  it  is  necessary  that  the  spring  act  at  the.  centre. 
The  course  of  our  reasoning  upon  such  a  subject  would  be  this.  By 
inspecting  the  watch,  even  when  standing  still,  we  get  a  proof  of  con- 
trivance, and  of  a  contriving  mind  having  been  employed  about  it.  In 
the  form  and  obvious  relation  of  its  parts,  we  see  enough  to  convince  us 
of  this.  If  we  pull  the  works  in  pieces,  for  the  purpose  of  a  closer 
examination,  we  are  still  more  fully  convinced.  But  when  we  see 
the  watch  going,  we  see  proof  of  another  point,  viz.  that  there  is  a 
power  somewhere,  and  somehow  or  other  applied  to  it ;  a  pcwer  in 


324  THEOLOGICAL     INSTITUTES.  LPART 

action ;  that  there  is  more  in  the  subject  than  the  mere  wheels  of  the 
machine ;  that  there  is  a  secret  spring,  or  a  gravitating  plummet ;  in  a 
word,  that  there  is  force  and  energy,  as  well  as  mechanism. 

"  So,  then,  the  watch  in  motion  establishes  to  the  observer  two  con 
elusions  :  one,  that  thought,  contrivance,  and  design  have  been  employed 
in  the  forming,  proportioning,  and  arranging  of  its  parts ;  and  that  who 
ever  or  wherever  he  be,  or  were,  such  a  contriver  there  is,  or  was  :  the 
other,  that  force  or  power,  distinct  from  mechanism,  is,  at  this  present 
time,  acting  upon  it.  If  I  saw  a  hand  mill  even  at  rest,  I  should  see 
contrivance ;  but  if  I  saw  it  grinding,  I  should  be  assured  that  a  hand 
was  at  the  windlass,  though  in  another  room.  It  is  the  same  in  nature. 
In  the  works  of  nature  we  trace  mechanism  ;  and  this  alone  proves  con- 
trivance ;  but  living,  active,  moving,  productive  nature,  proves  also  the 
exertion  of  a  power  at  the  centre  ;  for  wherever  the  power  resides,  may 
be  denominated  the  centre. 

"  The  intervention  and  disposition  of  what  are  (jailed  '  second  causes' 
fall  under  the  same  observation.  This  disposition  is  or  is  not  mechanism, 
according  as  we  can  or  cannot  trace  it  by  our  senses,  and  means  of 
examination.  That  is  all  the  difference  there  is ;  and  it  is  a  difference 
which  respects  our  faculties,  not  the  things  themselves.  Now  where  the 
order  of  second  causes  is  mechanical,  what  is  here  said  of  mechanism 
strictly  applies  to  it.  But  it  would  be  always  mechanism  (natural  chemistry, 
for  instance,  would  be  mechanism)  if  our  senses  were  acute  enough 
to  descry  it.  Neither  mechanism,  therefore,  in  the  works  of  nature,  nor 
the  intervention  of  what  are  called  second  causes,  (for  I  think  that  they 
are  the  same  thing,)  excuses  the  necessity  of  an  agent  distinct  from  both. 

"  If,  in  tracing  these  causes,  it  be  said,  that  we  find  certain  general 
properties  of  matter,  which  have  nothing  in  them  that  bespeaks  intelli- 
gence, I  answer  that,  still,  the  managing  of  these  properties,  the  pointing 
and  directing  them  to  the  uses  which  we  see  made  of  them,  demands 
intelligence  in  the  highest  degree.  For  example,  suppose  animal  secre- 
tions to  be  elective  attractions,  and  that  such  and  such  attractions  uni- 
versally  belong  to  such  and  such  substances ;  in  all  which  there  is  no 
intellect  concerned ;  still  the  choice  and  collocation  of  these  substances, 
the  fixing  upon  right  substances,  and  disposing  them  in  right  places,  must 
be  an  act  of  intelligence.  What  mischief  would  follow,  were  there  a 
single  transposition  of  the  secretory  organs  ;  a  single  mistake  in  arrang- 
ing the  glands  which  compose  them  ! 

"  There  may  be  many  second  causes,  and  many  courses  of  second 
causes,  one  behind  another,  between  what  we  observe  of  nature  and  the 
Deity ;  but  there  must  be  intelligence  somewhere ;  there  must  be  more 
in  nature  than  what  we  see  ;  and  among  the  things  unseen,  there  must 
be  an  intelligent,  designing  author.  The  philosopher  beholds  with  as- 
tonishment the  production  of  things  around  him.     Unconscious  particles 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  325 

of  matter  take  their  stations,  and  severally  range  themselfes  in  an  order, 
so  as  to  become  collectively  plants  or  animals,  i.  e.  organized  bodies, 
with  parts  bearing  strict  and  evident  relation  to  one  another,  and  to  the 
utility  of  the  whole :  and  it  should  seem  that  these  particles  could  not 
move  in  any  other  way  than  as  they  do  ;  for  they  testify  not  the  smallest 
sign  of  choice,  or  liberty,  or  discretion.  There  may  be  particular  intelli- 
gent beings  guiding  these  motions  in  each  case ;  or  they  may  be  the 
result  of  trains  of  mechanical  dispositions,  fixed  beforehand  by  an  intelli- 
gent appointment,  and  kept  in  action  by  a  power  at  the  centre.  But  in 
either  case  there  must  be  intelligence."  

The  above  arguments,  as  they  irresistibly  confirm  the  Scripture  doc  - 
trine  of  the  existence  of  an  intelligent  First  Cause,  expose  the  extreme 
folly  and  absurdity  of  Atheism.  The  first  of  the  leading  theories  which 
it  has  assumed,  is  the  eternity  of  matter.  When  this  means  the  eternity 
of  the  world  in  its  present  form  and  constitution,  it  is  contradicted  by 
the  changes  which  are  actually  and  every  moment  taking  place  in  it ; 
and,  as  above  argued,  by  the  contrivance  which  it  every  where  presents, 
and  which,  it  has  been  proved,  necessarily  supposes  that  designing  intelli- 
gence we  call  God.  When  it  means  the  eternity  of  unorganized  matter 
only,  the  subject  which*  has  received  those  various  forms,  and  orderly 
arrangements,  which  imply  contrivance  and  final  causes,  it  leaves  un- 
touched the  question  of  an  intelligent  cause,  the  author  of  the  forms  with 
which  it  has  been  impressed.  A  creative  cause  may,  and  must,  never- 
theless exist ;  and  this  was  the  opinion  of  many  of  the  ancient  Theistical 
philosophers,  who  ascribed  eternity  both  to  God  and  to  matter ;  and  con- 
sidered creation,  not  as  the  bringing  of  something  out  of  nothing,  but  as 
the  framing  of  what  actually  existed  without  order  and  without  end. 
But  though  this  tenet  was  held,  in  conjunction  with  a  belief  in  the  Deity, 
by  many  who  had  not  the  light  of  the  Scripture  revelation  ;  yet  its  manifest 
tendency  is  to  Atheism,  because  it  supposes  the  impossibility  of  creation 
in  the  absolute  sense;  and  thus  produces  limited  notions  of  God,  from 
which  the  transition  to  an  entire  denial  of  him  is  an  easy  step.  In 
modern  times,  therefore,  the  opinion  of  the  eternity  of  matter  has  been 
held  by  few  but  absolute  Atheists. 

What  seems  to  have  led  to  the  notion  of  a  pre-existent  and  eternal 
matter  out  of  which  the  world  was  formed,  was  the  supposed  impossibility 
of  a  creation  from  nothing,  according  to  the  maxim,  "ex  nihilo  nihil  Jit." 
The  philosophy  was  however  bad,  because  as  no  contradiction  was  im- 
plied in  thus  ascribing  to  God  the  power  to  create  out  of  nothing  ;  it  was 
a  matter  of  choice,  whether  to  allow  what  was  merely  not  compre- 
hensible by  man,  or  to  put  limitations  without  reason  to  the  power  of 
God.     Thus  Cudworth  : — 

"  Because  it  is  undeniably  certain,  concerning  ourselves,  and  all  im- 
perfect beings,  that  none  of  these  can  create  any  new  substance,  men  are 


326  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

apt  to  measure  all  things  by  their  own  scantling,  and  to  suppose  it  uni- 
versally impossible  for  any  power  whatever  thus  to  create.  But  since 
it  is  certain,  that  imperfect  beings  can  themselves  produce  some  tilings 
out  of  nothing  pre-existing,  as  new  cogitations,  new  local  motion,  and  new 
modifications  of  things  corporeal,  it  is  surely  reasonable  to  think  that  an 
absolutely  perfect  being  can  do  something  more,  i.  e.  create  new  substances, 
or  give  them  their  whole  being.  And  it  may  well  be  thought  as  easy 
for  God  or  an  omnipotent  Being  to  make  a  whole  world,  matter  and  all, 
$%  ax  ovrwv,  as  it  is  for  us  to  create  a  thought  or  to  move  a  finger,  or  for 
the  sun  to  send  out  rays,  or  a  candle  light,  or  lastly,  for  an  opaque  body 
to  produce  an  image  of  itself  in  a  glass  or  water,  or  to  project  a  shadow : 
all  these  imperfect  things  being  but  the  energies,  rays,  images,  or  sha- 
dows of  the  Deity.  For  a  substance  to  be  made  out  of  nothing  by  God,  or 
a  Being  infinitely  perfect,  is  not  for  it  to  be  made  out  of  nothing  in  the 
impossible  sense,  because  it  comes  from  him  who  is  all.  Nor  can  it  be 
said  to  be  impossible  for  any  thing  whatever  to  be  made  by  that  which 
hath  not  only  infinitely  greater  perfection,  but  also  infinite  active  power. 
It  is  indeed  true,  that  infinite  power  itself  cannot  do  things  in  their  own 
nature  impossible ;  and,  therefore,  those  who  deny  creation  ought  to 
prove  that  it  is  absolutely  impossible  for  a  substance,  though  not  for  an 
accident  or  modification,  to  be  brought  from  non-existence  into  being. 
But  nothing  is  in  itself  impossible,  which  does  not  imply  a  contradiction : 
and  though  it  be  a  contradiction  for  a  thing  to  be  and  not  to  be  at  the 
same  time,  there  is  surely  no  contradiction  in  conceiving  an  imperfect 
being,  which  before  was  not,  afterward  to  be." 

It  is  not  necessary  to  refer  to  the  usual  metaphysical  arguments  to 
show  the  non-eternity  of  matter,  by  proving  that  its  existence  must  be 
necessary  if  it  be  eternal ;  and,  if  necessary,  that  it  must  be  infinite,  &c. 
They  are  not  of  much  value.  Every  man  bears  in  himself  the  proof 
of  a  creation  out  of  nothing,  so  that  the  objection  from  the  impossibility 
of  the  thing  is  at  once  removed. 

"  That  sensation,  intelligence,  consciousness,  and  volition,  are  not  the 
result  of  any  modifications  of  figure  and  motion,  is  a  truth  as  evident  as 
that  consciousness  is  not  swift,  nor  volition  square.  If  then  these  be 
the  powers  or  properties  of  a  being  distinct  from  matter,  which  we  think 
capable  of  the  completest  proof,  every  man  who  does  not  believe  that 
his  mind  has  existed  and  been  conscious  from  eternity,  must  be  convinced 
that  the  power  of  creation  has  been  exerted  on  himself.  If  it  be  denied 
that  there  is  any  immaterial  substance  in  man,  still  it  must  be  confessed 
that,  as  matter  is  not  essentially  conscious,  and  cannot  be  made  so  by 
any  particular  organization,  there  is  some  real  thing  or  entity,  call  it  what 
you  please,  which  has  either  existed  and  been  conscious  from  eternity,  or 
been  in  time  brought  from  non-entity  into  existence  by  an  exertion  of 
infinite  power." 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  327 

The  former  no  sober  person  will  contend  for,  and  the  latter  therefore 
must  be  admitted. 

On  these  grounds  the  absurdity  of  Atheism  is  manifest.  If  it  attributes 
the  various  arrangements  of  material  things  to  chance,  that  is,  to  nothing, 
it  rests  in  design  without  a  designer ;  in  effects  without  a  cause.  If  it 
allow  an  intelligent  cause  operating  to  produce  these  effects,  but  denies 
him  to  be  almighty,  by  ascribing  eternity  to  matter,  and  placing  its  crea- 
tion beyond  his  power,  it  acknowledges  with  us  indeed  a  God  ;  but  makes 
him  an  imperfect  being,  limited  in  his  power  ;  and  it  chooses  to  acknow- 
ledge this  limited  and  imperfect  being  not  only  without  reason,  for  we 
have  just  seen  that  creation  out  of  nothing  implies  no  contradiction,  but 
even  against  reason,  for  the  acknowledgment  of  a  creation  out  of  nothing 
must  be  forced  from  him  by  his  own  experience,  unless  he  will  contend 
that  that  conscious  being  himself  may  have  existed  from  eternity  without 
being  conscious  of  existence,  except  for  the  space  of  a  few  past  years. 

On  some  modern  schemes  of  Atheism,  Paley  justly  remarks : — 

"  I  much  doubt,  whether  the  new  schemes  have  advanced  any  thing 
upon  the  old,  or  done  more  than  changed  the  terms  of  the  nomenclature. 
For  instance,  I  could  never  see  the  difference  between  the  antiquated 
system  of  atoms  and  Buffon's  organic  molecules.  This  philosopher, 
having  made  a  planet  by  knocking  off  from  the  sun  a  piece  of  melted 
glass,  in  consequence  of  the  stroke  of  a  comet ;  and  having  set  it  in 
motion  by  the  same  stroke,  both  round  its  own  axis  and  the  sun,  finds 
his  next  difficulty  to  be,  how  to  bring  plants  and  animals  upon  it.  In 
order  to  solve  this  difficulty,  we  are  to  suppose  the  universe  replenished 
with  particles  endowed  with  life,  but  without  organization  or  senses  of 
their  own ;  and  endowed  also  with  a  tendency  to  marshal  themselves 
into  organized  forms.  The  concourse  of  these  particles,  by  virtue  of 
this  tendency,  but  without  intelligence,  will,  or  direction,  (for  I  do  not 
find  that  any  of  these  qualities  are  ascribed  to  them,)  has  produced  the 
living  forms  which  we  now  see. 

"  Very  few  of  the  conjectures,  which  philosophers  hazard  upon  these 
subjects,  have  more  of  pretension  in  them,  than  the  challenging  you  to 
show  the  direct  impossibility  of  the  hypothesis.  In  the  present  example 
there  seemed  to  be  a  positive  objection  to  the  whole  scheme  upon  the 
very  face  of  it ;  which  was  that,  if  the  case  were  as  here  represented, 
new  combinations  ought  to  be  perpetually  taking  place ;  new  plants  and 
animals,  or  organized  bodies  which  were  neither,  ought  to  be  starting 
up  before  our  eyes  every  day.  For  this,  however,  our  philosopher  has 
an  answer.  While  so  many  forms  of  plants  and  animals  are  already  in 
existence,  and  consequently,  so  many  •  internal  moulds,'  as  he  calls 
them,  are  prepared  and  at  hand,  the  organic  particles  run  into  these 
moulds,  and  are  employed  in  supplying  an  accession  of  substance 
to   them,   as  well    for   their  growth,   as   for   their    propagation; — by 


328  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

which  means  things  keep  their  ancient  course.  But,  says  the  same 
philosopher,  should  any  general  loss  or  destruction  of  the  present 
constitution  of  organized  bodies  take  place,  the  particles  for  want 
of  *  moulds'  into  which  they  might  enter,  would  run  into  different  com- 
binations, and  replenish  the  waste  with  new  species  of  organized 
substances. 

"  Is  there  any  history  to  countenance  this  notion  1  Is  it  known,  that 
any  destruction  has  been  so  repaired  ?     Any  desert  thus  re-peopled  ? 

"  But,  these  wonder-working  instruments,  these  '  internal  moulds,' 
what  are  they  after  all  ?  What,  when  examined,  but  a  name  without 
signification?  unintelligible,  if  not  self  contradictory;  at  the  best  dif- 
fering in  nothing  from  the  '  essential  forms'  of  the  Greek  philosophy  ? 
One  short  sentence  of  Buffon's  works  exhibits  his  scheme  as  follows  : — 
'  When  this  nutritious  and  prolific  matter,  which  is  diffused  throughout 
all  nature,  passes  through  the  internal  mould  of  an  animal  or  vegetable,  and 
finds  a  proper  matrix  or  receptacle,  it  gives  rise  to  an  animal  or  vegetable 
of  the  same  species.'  Does  any  reader  annex  a  meaning  to  the  expres- 
sion '  internal  mould,'  in  this  sentence  ?  Ought  it  then  to  be  said,  that 
though  we  have  little  notion  of  an  internal  mould,  we  have  not  much 
more  of  a  designing  mind  ?  The  very  contrary  of  this  assertion  is  the 
truth.  When  we  speak  of  an  artificer  or  an  architect,  we  talk  of 
what  is  comprehensible  to  our  understanding,  and  familiar  to  our  expe- 
rience. We  use  no  other  terms,  than  what  refer  us  for  their  meaning 
to  our  consciousness  and  observation ;  what  express  the  constant 
objects  of  both ;  whereas  names  like  that  we  have  mentioned,  refer  us 
to  nothing  ;  excite  no  idea ;  convey  a  sound  to  the  ear,  but  I  think  do 
no  more. 

"  Another  system,  which  has  lately  been  brought  forward,  and  with 
much  ingenuity,  is  that  of  appetencies.  The  principle,  and  the  short 
account  of  the  theory,  is  this  :  pieces  of  soft,  ductile  matter,  being 
endued  with  propensities  or  appetencies  for  particular  actions,  would,  by 
continual  endeavours,  carried  on  through  a  long  series  of  generations, 
work  themselves  gradually  into  suitable  forms  ;  and  at  length  acquire, 
though  perhaps  by  obscure  and  almost  imperceptible  improvements,  an 
organization  fitted  to  the  action  which  their  respective  propensities  led 
them  to  exert.  A  piece  of  animated  matter  for  example,  that  was 
endued  with  a  propensity  to  jly,  though  ever  so  shapeless,  though  no 
other  we  will  suppose  than  a  round  ball,  to  begin  with,  would,  in  a 
course  of  ages,  if  not  in  a  million  of  years,  perhaps  in  a  hundred  mil- 
lion of  years,  (for  our  theorists,  having  eternity  to  dispose  of,  are  never 
sparing  in  time,)  acquire  wings.  The  same  tendency  to  locomotion  in 
an  aquatic  animal,  or  rather  in  an  animated  lump  which  might  happen  to 
be  surrounded  by  water,  would  end  in  the  production  offms :  in  a  living 
substance,  confined  to  the  solid  earth,  would  put  out  legs  and  feet ;  or  if 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  329 

it  took  a  different  turn,  would  break  the  body  into  ringlet3,  and  conclude 
by  crawling  upon  the  ground. 

"  The  scheme  under  consideration  is  open  to  the  same  objection  with 
other  conjectures  of  a  similar  tendency,  viz.  a  total  defect  of  evidence. 
No  changes,  like  those  which  the  theory  requires,  have  ever  been  observed. 
All  the  changes  in  Ovid's  Metamorphoses  might  have  been  effected  by 
these  appetencies,  if  the  theory  were  true  :  yet  not  an  example,  nor  the 
pretence  of  an  example,  is  offered  of  a  single  change  being  known  to 
have  taken  place. 

"  The  solution,  when  applied  to  the  works  of  nature  generally,  is 
contradicted  by  many  of  the  phenomena,  and  totally  inadequate  to 
others.  The  ligaments  or  strictures,  by  which  the  tendons  are  tied 
down  at  the  angles  of  the  joints,  could  by  no  possibility  be  formed  by 
the  motion  or  exercise  of  the  tendons  themselves ;  by  any  appetency 
exciting  these  parts  into  action  :  or  by  any  tendency  arising  therefrom. 
The  tendency  is  all  the  other  way ;  the  conatus  in  constant  opposition 
to  them.  Length  of  time  does  not  help  the  case  at  all,  but  the  reverse. 
The  valves  also  in  the  blood  vessels  could  never  be  formed  in  the  man- 
ner which  our  theorist  proposes.  The  blood,  in  its  right  and  natural 
course,  has  no  tendency  to  form  them.  When  obstructed  or  refluent,  it 
has  the  contrary.  These  parts  could  not  grow  out  of  their  use,  though 
they  had  eternity  to  grow  in. 

"The  senses  of  animals  appear  to  me  altogether  incapable  of  receiv- 
ing the  explanation  of  their  origin  which  this  theory  affords.  Including 
under  the  word  '  sense'  the  organ  and  the  perception,  we  have  no 
account  of  either.  How  will  our  philosopher  get  at  vision,  or  make  an 
eye?  How  should  the  blind  animal  affect  sight,  of  which  blind  ani- 
mals, we  know,  have  neither  conception  nor  desire  ?  Affecting  it,  by 
what  operation  of  its  will,  by  what  endeavour  to  see,  could  it  so  deter- 
mine the  fluids  of  its  body,  as  to  inchoate  the  formation  of  an  eye  ?  Or 
suppose  the  eye  formed,  would  the  perception  follow  ?  The  same  of 
the  other  senses.  And  this  objection  holds  its  force,  ascribe  what  you 
will  to  the  hand  of  time,  to  the  power  of  habit,  to  changes  too  slow  to 
be  observed  by  man,  or  brought  within  any  comparison  which  he  is 
able  to  make  of  past  things  with  the  present :  concede  what  you  please 
to  these  arbitrary  and  unattested  suppositions,  how  will  they  help  you  ? 
Here  is  no  inception.  No  laws,  no  course,  no  powers  of  nature  which 
prevail  at  present,  nor  any  analogous  to  these,  could  give  commence- 
ment to  a  new  sense.  And  it  is  in  vain  to  inquire,  how  that  might  pro- 
ceed which  could  never  begin. 

"  In  the  last  place :  what  do  these  appetencies  mean  when  applied 
to  plants  ?  I  am  not  able  to  give  a  signification  to  the  term,  which 
can  be  transferred  from  animals  to  plants  ;  or  which  is  common  to 
both.     Yet  a  no  less  successful  organization  is  found  in  plants,  than 


330  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  .     [PART 

what  obtains  in  animals.  A  solution  is  wanted  for  one  as  well  as  the 
other. 

"  Upon  the  whole  ;  after  all  the  schemes  and  struggles  of  a  reluctant 
philosophy,  the  necessary  resort  is  a  Deity.  The  marks  of  design  are 
too  strong  to  be  got  over.  Design  must  have  had  a  designer.  That 
designer  must  have  been  a  person.     That  person  is  God." 

Well  has  it  been  said,  that  Atheism  is,  in  all  its  theories,  a  credulity 
of  the  grossest  kind,  equally  degrading  to  the  understanding  and  to  the 
heart :  for  what  reflecting  and  honest  mind  can  for  a  moment  put  these 
theories  into  competition  with  that  revealed  in  the  Scriptures,  at  once 
so  sublime  and  so  convincing ;  and  which  instead  of  shunning,  like 
those  just  mentioned,  an  appeal  to  facts,  bids  us  look  to  the  heavens  and 
to  the  earth ;  assemble  the  aggregate  of  beings,  great  and  small ;  and 
examine  their  structure,  and  mark  their  relations,  in  proof  that  there 
must  exist  an  all-wise  and  an  almighty  Creator? 

Such  is  the  evidence  which  the  doctrine  of  a  Deity  receives  from 
experience,  observation,  and  rational  induction,  a  posteriori.  The  argu- 
ment thus  stated,  has  an  overwhelming  force,  and  certainly  needs  no 
other,  though  attempts  have  been  made  to  obtain  proof  a  priori,  and 
thus  to  meet  and  rout  the  forces  of  the  enemy  in  both  directions.  No 
instance  is  however  I  believe  on  record  of  an  Atheistic  conversion  hav- 
ing been  produced  by  this  process,  and  it  may  be  ranked  among  the 
over  zealous  attempts  of  the  advocates  of  truth.  It  is  well  intentioned, 
but  unsatisfactory,  and  so  far  as  on  the  one  hand  it  has  led  to  a  neglect 
of  the  more  convincing,  and  powerful  course  of  argument  drawn  from 
"  the  things  which  do  appear  ;"  and  on  the  other,  has  encouraged  a 
dependence  upon  a  mode  of  investigation,  to  which  the  human  mind  is 
inadequate,  which  in  many  instances  is  an  utter  mental  delusion,  and 
which  scarcely  two  minds  will  conduct  in  the  same  manner;  it  has 
probably  been  mischievous  in  its  effects  by  inducing  a  skepticism  not 
arising  out  of  the  nature  of  the  case,  but  from  the  imperfect  and  unsa- 
tisfactory investigations  of  the  human  understanding,  pushed  beyond  the 
limit  of  its  powers.  In  most  instances  it  is  a  sword  which  cuts  two 
ways ;  and  the  mere  imaginary  assumptions  of  those  who  think  they 
have  found  out  a  new  way  to  demonstrate  truth,  have  in  many  instances 
either  done  disservice  to  it  by  absurdity,  or  yielded  principles  which  unbe- 
lievers have  connected  with  the  most  injurious  conclusions.  We  need  only 
instance  the  doctrine  of  the  necessary  existence  of  the  Deity,  when  rea- 
soned a  priori.  Some  acute  infidels  have  thanked  those  for  the  discovery 
who  intended  nothing  so  little  as  to  encourage  error ;  and  have  argued 
from  that  notion,  that  the  Supreme  Being  cannot  be  a  free  agent,  and 
have  thus  set  the  first  principles  of  religion  at  variance  with  the  Scrip- 
tures. The  fact  seems  to  be,  that  though,  when  once  the  existence  of 
a  first  and  intelligent  cause  is  established,  some  of  his  attributes  are 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES.  331 

capable  of  proof  d  priori,  (how  much  that  proof  is  worth  is  another 
question,)  yet  that  his  existence  itself  admits  of  no  such  demonstration, 
and  that  in  the  nature  of  the  thing  it  is  impossible. 

The  reason  of  this  is  drawn  from  the  very  nature  of  »an  argument 
d  priori.  It  is  an  argument  from  an  antecedent  to  a  consequent,  from 
cause  to  effect.  If  therefore  there  be  any  thing  existing  in  nature,  or 
could  have  been,  from  which  the  being  and  attributes  of  God  might  have 
been  derived,  or  any  thing  which  can  be  justly  considered  as  prior  in 
order  of  nature  or  conception  to  the  first  cause  of  all  things ;  then  may 
the  argument  from  such  prior  thing  or  principle  be  good  and  valid. — 
But  if  there  is  in  reality  nothing  prior  to  the  being  of  God,  considered 
as  the  first  cause  and  causality,  nothing  in  nature,  nothing  in  reason, 
then  the  attempt  is  fruitless  to  argue  from  it ;  and  we  improperly  pre- 
tend to  search  into  the  grounds  or  reasons  of  the  first  cause,  of  whom 
antecedently  we  neither  do  nor  can  know  any  thing. 

As  the  force  of  the  argument  d  priori  has  however  been  much 
debated,  it  may  not  be  useless  to  enter  somewhat  more  fully  into  the 
subject. 

One  of  the  earliest  and  ablest  advocates  of  this  mode  of  demonstrat- 
ing the  existence  of  God,  was  Dr.  Samuel  Clarke.  He  however  first 
proceeds  a  posteriori  to  prove,  from  the  actual  existence  of  dependent 
beings,  the  existence  from  eternity  of  "  one  unchangeable  and  independ- 
ent Being ;"  and  thus  makes  himself  debtor  to  this  obvious  and  plain 
demonstration  before  he  can  prove  that  this  Being  is,  in  his  sense, 
necessarily  existent.  Necessity  of  existence  is  therefore  tacitly  acknow- 
ledged, not  to  be  a  tangible  idea  in  the  first  instance  ',  and  the  weight 
of  the  proof  is  tacitly  confessed  to  rest  upon  the  argument  from  effect  to 
cause,  which  if  admitted  needs  no  assistance  from  a  more  abstract 
course  of  arguing.  For  if  the  first  argument  be  allowed,  every  thing 
else  follows ;  and  it  must  be  allowed,  before  the  higher  ground  of 
demonstration  can  be  taken.  We  have  seen  the  guarded  manner  in 
which  Howe,  in  the  quotation  before  given,  has  stated  the  notion  of  the 
necessary  existence  of  the  Divine  Being.  Dr.  S.  Clarke  and  his  fol- 
lowers have  refined  upon  this,  and  given  a  view  of  the  subject  which  is 
liable  to  the  strongest  objections.  His  words  are,  "To  be  self  existent 
is  to  exist  by  an  absolute  necessity,  originally  in  the  nature  of  the  thing 
itself;"  and  "this  necessity  must  not  be  barely  consequent  upon  our 
supposition  of  the  existence  of  such  a  being,  for  then  it  would  not  be  a 
necessity  absolutely  such  in  itself,  nor  be  the  ground  or  foundation  of  the 
existence  of  any  thing,  being  on  the  contrary  only  a  consequent  of  it ; 
but  it  must  antecedently  force  itself  upon  us  whether  we  will  or  not ; 
even  when  we  are  endeavouring  to  suppose  that  no  such  being  exists." 
{Demonstration  1.) 

One  of  the  reasons  given  for  this  opinion  is,  "  there  must  be  in  nature 


332  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  |PART 

a  permanent  ground  or  reason  for  the  existence  of  the  first  cause,  other- 
wise its  being  would  be  owing  to  mere  chance."  But  to  this  it  has  been 
well  replied,  "  Why  must  we  say  that  God  has  his  existence  from,  or 
that  he  does  exist  for  some  prior  cause  or  reason  1  Why  may  we  not 
say  that  God  exists  as  the  first  cause  of  all  things,  and  thereupon  sur- 
cease from  all  farther  inquiries  ?  God  himself  said  '  I  a?«,'  and  he  had 
done.  But  the  argument,  if  it  did  prove  any  thing,  would  prove  too 
much.  To  evince  which,  let  the  same  way  of  reasoning  be  applied  to 
what  you  call  the  ground  or  the  reason  of  the  existence  of  the  first 
cause,  and  then  with  very  little  variation,  I  retort  upon  you  in  your  own 
words.  If  this  ground  or  reason  be  itself  any  thing,  or  any  property 
of  any  thing,  of  what  nature,  kind  or  degree  soever,  there  must  accord- 
ing to  your  way  of  reasoning,  be  in  nature  a  ground  or  reason  of  the 
existence  of  such  your  antecedent  necessity, '  a  reason  why  it  is,  rather 
than  why  it  is  not,  otherwise  its  existence  will  be  owing  to,  or  dependent 
on,  mere  chance.'  You  observe  elsewhere  that 'nothing  can  be  more 
absurd  than  to  suppose  that  any  thing,  or  any  circumstance  of  any  thing, 
is,  and  yet  that  there  is  absolutely  no  reason  why  it  is,  rather  than  why 
it  is  not.'  This  consideration  you  allege  as  a  vindication  of  your  assign- 
ing a  reason,  a  priori,  for  the  existence  of  the  first  cause.  If  therefore 
your  supposed  reason,  ground,  or  necessity,  be  *  any  thing  or  any  sup- 
posable  circumstance  of  any  thing,'  as  surely  it  must  be,  if  not  mere 
nothing,  then  by  the  same  rule,  such  <  ground,' '  necessity,'  &c,  must  have 
a  reason,  a  priori,  why  it  is,  rather  than  why  it  is  not,  and  after  that 
another,  and  then  a  third,  and  so  on  in  infinitum.  And  thus  in  your 
way  we  may  be  always  seeking  a  first  cause,  and  never  be  able  to  find 
one,  whereon  to  fix  ourselves,  or  check  our  restless  and  unprofitable  in- 
quiries. While  indeed  we  consider  only  inferior  existencies  and  second 
causes,  there  will  always  be  room  left  for  inquiring  why  such  things  are, 
and  how  such  things  came  to  be  as  they  are  ;  because  this  is  only 
seeking  and  investigating  the  initial,  the  efficient,  or  the  final  cause  of 
their  existence.  But  when  we  are  advanced  beyond  all  causes  proca- 
tarctical  and  final,  it  remains  only  to  say,  that  such  is  our  first  cause  and 
causality,  that  we  know  it  exists,  and  without  prior  cause  ;  and  with  this 
you  yourself  will  be  obliged  to  fall  in,  the  first  step  you  farther  take ; 
for  if  we  ask  you  of  the  antecedent  necessity,  whence  it  is,  and  what 
prior  ground  there  was  for  it,  you  must  yourself  be  content  to  say — so 
it  is,  you  know  not  why,  you  know  not  how."  (Gretton's  Review  of  the 
Argument  a  priori.) 

The  necessary  existence  of  the  first  cause,  considered  as  a  logical 
necessity,  may  be  made  out  without  difficulty,  and  is  indeed  demonstrated 
"n  the  arguments  given  above  ;  but  the  natural  necessity  of  his  existence 
is  a  subject  too  subtle  for  human  grasp,  and,  from  its  obscurity,  is  cal- 
culated to  mislead.     Every  thing  important  in  the  idea,  so  far  as  it  is 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  333 

unexceptionable,  is  well  and  safely  expressed  by  Baxter.  "  That  which 
could  be  eternally  without  a  cause,  and  itself  cause  all  things,  is  self 
sufficient  and  independent."  (Reasons  of  the  Christian  Religion.)  This 
seems  the  only  true  notion  of  necessary  existence,  and  care  should  be 
taken  to  use  the  term  in  a  definite  and  comprehensible  sense.  The 
word  necessity  when  applied  to  existence  may  be  taken  in  two  accepta- 
tions, either  as  it  arises  from  the  relation  which  the  existence  of  that  of 
which  it  is  affirmed  has  to  the  existence  of  other  things,  or  from  the  re- 
lation which  the  actual  existence  of  that  thing  has  to  the  manner  of  its 
own  existence.  In  the  former  sense,  it  denotes  that  the  supposition  of 
the  non-existence  of  that  of  which  the  necessity  is  affirmed,  implies  the 
non-existence  of  things  we  know  to  exist.  Thus  some  independent 
being  does  necessarily  exist ;  because  to  suppose  no  independent  being, 
implies  that  there  are  no  dependent  beings,  the  contrary  of  which  we 
know  to  be  true.  In  the  second  sense,  necessity  means  that  the  being 
of  which  it  is  affirmed  exists  after  such  a  manner  as  that  it  never  could 
in  time  past  have  been  non-existent,  or  can  in  future  time  cease  to  be. 
Thus  every  independent  being,  as  it  exists  without  a  cause,  is  neces- 
sarily existing,  because  existence  is  essential  to  such  a  being ;  so  that 
it  never  could  begin  to  exist,  and  never  can  cease  to  be  :  for  to  suppose 
a  being  to  begin  to  exist,  or  to  lose  its  existence,  is  to  suppose  a  change 
from  non-entity  to  entity,  or  vice  versa ;  and  to  suppose  such  a  change 
is  to  suppose  a  cause  upon  which  that  being  depends.  Every  being 
therefore  which  is  independent,  that  is,  which  had  no  cause  of  its  exist- 
ence, must  exist  necessarily,  and  cannot  possibly  have  begun  to  exist  in 
time  past,  or  cease  to  be  in  time  future. 

Still  farther  on  Dr.  S.  Clarke's  view  of  the  necessary  existence  of  the 
Supreme  Being,  it  has  been  observed, 

"  But  what  is  this  necessity  which  proves  so  much  ?  It  is  the  ground 
of  existence  (he  says)  of  that  which  exists  of  itself;  and  if  so,  it  must, 
in  the  order  of  nature,  and  in  our  conceptions,  be  antecedent  to  that 
being  of  whose  existence  it  is  the  ground.  Concerning  such  a  principle, 
there  are  but  three  suppositions  which  can  possibly  be  made ;  and  all 
of  them  may  be  shown  to  be  absurd  and  contradictory.  We  may  sup 
pose  either  the  substance  itself,  some  property  of  that  substance,  or 
something  extrinsic  to  both,  to  be  this  antecedent  ground  of  existence 
prior  in  the  order  of  nature  to  the  first  cause. 

"  One  would  think,  from  the  turn  of  the  argument  which  here  repre- 
sents this  antecedent  necessity  as  efficient  and  causal,  that  it  were 
considered  as  something  extrinsic  to  the  first  cause.  Indeed,  if  the 
words  have  any  meaning  in  them  at  all,  or  any  force  of  argument,  they 
must  be  so  understood,  just  as  we  understand  them  of  any  external 
cause  producing  its  effect.  But  as  an  extrinsic  principle  is  absurd  in 
itself,  and  is  beside  rejected  by  Dr.  S.  Clarke,  who  says  expressly,  that 


334  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  I  PART 

•  of  the  thing  which  derives  not  its  being  from  any  other  thing,  this  ne- 
cessity or  ground  of  existence  must  be  in  the  thing  itself,'  we  need  not 
say  a  word  more  of  the  last  of  these  suppositions. 

"  Let  us  then  consider  the  first ;  let  us  take  the  substance  itself,  and 
try  whether  it  can  be  conceived  as  prior  or  antecedent  to  itself  in  our 
conceptions  or  in  the  order  of  nature.  Surely  we  need  not  observe  that 
nothing  can  be  more  absurd  or  contradictory  than  such  a  supposition. 
Dr.  S.  Clarke  himself  repeatedly  affirms,  and  it  would  be  strange  indeed 
if  he  did  not  affirm,  that  no  being,  no  thing  whatever,  can  be  conceived 
as  in  any  respect  prior  to  the  first  cause. 

"  The  only  remaining  supposition  is,  that  some  attribute  or  property 
of  the  self-existent  being  may  be  conceived  as  in  the  order  of  nature 
antecedent  to  that  being.  But  this,  if  possible,  is  more  absurd  than 
either  of  the  two  preceding  suppositions.  An  attribute  is  attributed  to 
its  subject  as  its  ground  or  support,  and  not  the  subject  to  its  attribute. 
A  property,  in  the  very  notion  of  it,  is  proper  to  the  substance  to  which 
it  belongs,  and  subsequent  to  it  both  in  our  conceptions  and  in  the  order 
of  nature.  An  antecedent  attribute,  or  antecedent  property,  is  a  sole- 
cism as  great,  and  a  contradiction  as  flat,  as  an  antecedent  subsequent 
or  a  subsequent  antecedent,  understood  in  the  same  sense  and  in  the 
same  syllogism.  Every  property  or  attribute,  as  such,  presupposes  its 
subject ;  and  cannot  otherwise  be  understood.  This  is  a  truth  so  ob- 
vious and  so  forcible,  that  it  sometimes  extorts  the  assent  even  of  those 
who  upon  other  occasions  labour  to  obscure  it.  It  is  confessed  by  Dr. 
S.  Clarke,  that  *  the  scholastic  way  of  proving  the  existence  of  the  self, 
existent  being  from  the  absolute  perfection  of  his  nature,  is  utfrspov 
stfporepov.  For  all  or  any  perfections  (says  he)  presuppose  existence ; 
which  is  a  petitio  principii.''  If  therefore  properties,  modes,  or  attri- 
butes in  God,  be  considered  as  perfections,  (and  it  is  impossible  to  con- 
sider them  as  any  thing  else,)  then,  by  this  confession  of  the  great 
Author  himself,  they  must  all  or  any  of  them  presuppose  existence.  It 
is  indeed  immediately  added  in  the  same  place,  ■  that  bare  necessity  of 
existence  does  not  presuppose,  but  infer  existence ;'  which  is  true  only 
if  such  necessity  be  supposed  to  be  a  principle  extrinsic,  the  absurdity 
of  which  has  been  already  shown,  and  is  indeed  universally  confessed. 
If  it  be  a  mode  or  property,  it  must  presuppose  the  existence  of  its  sub- 
ject, as  certainly  and  as  evidently  as  it  is  a  mode  or  a  property.  It 
might  perhaps  a  posteriori  infer  the  existence  of  its  subject,  as  effects 
may  infer  a  cause ;  but  that  it  should  infer  in  the  other  way  a  priori  is 
altogether  as  impossible  as  that  a  triangle  should  be  a  square,  or  a  globe 
a  parallelogram."  {Law's  Inquiry.) 

The  true  idea  of  the  necessary  existence  of  God  is,  that  he  thus  exists 
because  it  is  his  nature,  as  an  independent  and  uncaused  being,  to  be ; 
his  being  is  necessary  because  it  is  underived,  not  underived  because  i* 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES.  Ii'i5 

is  necessary.  The  first  is  the  sober  sense  of  the  word  among  our  old 
divines ;  the  latter  is  a  theory  of  modern  date,  and  leads  to  no  practical 
result  whatever,  except  to  entangle  the  mind  in  difficulty,  and  to  give  a 
colour  to  some  very  injurious  errors. 

Equally  unsatisfactory,  and  therefore  quite  as  little  calculated  to 
serve  the  cause  of  truth,  is  the  argument  from  space  ;  which  is  repre- 
sented by  Newton,  Clarke,  and  others,  as  an  infinite  mode  of  an  infinite 
substance,  and  that  substance  God,  so  that  from  the  existence  of  space 
itself  may  be  argued  the  existence  of  one  supreme  and  infinite  Being. 
Berkeley,  Law,  and  others,  have  however  shown  the  fallacy  of  consi- 
dering space  either  as  a  substance,  or  a  mode,  and  have  brought  these 
speculations  under  the  dominion  of  common  sense,  and  rescued  them 
from  metaphysical  delusion.  They  have  rightly  observed,  that  space  is 
a  mere  negation,  and  that  to  suppose  it  to  have  existence,  because  it  has 
some  properties,  for  instance,  of  penetrability,  or  the  capacity  of  re- 
ceiving body,  is  the  same  thing  as  to  affirm  that  darkness  must  be  some- 
thing because  it  has  the  capacity  of  receiving  Ugld,  and  silence  some- 
thing because  it  has  the  property  of  admitting  sound,  and  absence  the 
property  of  being  supplied  by  presence.  To  reason  in  this  manner  is  to 
assign  absolute  negations,  and  such  as,  in  the  same  way,  may  be  applied 
to  nothing,  and  then  call  them  positive  properties,  and  so  infer  that  the 
chimera,  thus  clothed  with  them,  must  needs  be  something.  The  argu- 
ments in  favour  of  the  real  existence  of  space  as  something  positive, 
have  failed  in  the  hands  of  their  first  great  authors,  and  the  attempts 
since  made  to  uphold  them  have  added  nothing  but  what  is  exceedingly 
futile,  and  indeed  often  obviously  absurd.  The  whole  of  this  contro- 
versy has  left  us  only  to  lament  the  waste  of  labour  which  has  been 
employed  in  erecting  around  the  impregnable  ramparts  of  the  great 
arguments  on  which  the  cause  rests  with  so  much  safety,  the  useless 
incumbrances  of  mud  and  straw. 

The  proof  of  the  being  of  a  God  reposes  wholly  then  upon  arguments 
d  posteriori,  and  it  needs  no  other ;  though  we  shall  see  as  we  proceed 
that  even  these  arguments,  strong  and  irrefutable  as  they  are  when 
rightly  applied,  have  been  used  to  prove  more  as  to  some  of  the  attri- 
butes of  God,  than  can  satisfactorily  be  drawn  from  them.  Even  with 
this  safe  and  convincing  process  of  reasoning  at  our  command,  we  shall 
find,  at  every  step  of  an  inquiry  into  the  Divine  nature,  our  entire  de- 
pendence upon  Divine  revelation,  for  our  primary  light.  That  must 
Doth  originate  our  investigations,  and  conduct  them  to  a  satisfactory 
result. 


336  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

CHAPTER  II. 

Attributes  of  God :  (5)  U?iity,  Spirituality. 

The  existence  of  a  supreme  Creator  and  First  Cause  of  all  things, 
himself  uncaused,  and  independent,  and  therefore  self  existent,  having 
been  proved,  the  next  question  is,  whether  there  exists  more  than  one 
such  Being,  or,  in  other  words,  whether  we  are  to  ascribe  to  him  an 
absolute  unity  or  soleness.  On  this  point  the  testimony  of  the  Scriptures 
is  express,  and  unequivocal.  "  The  Lord  our  God  is  oine  Lord,"  Deut. 
vi,  4.  "  The  Lord  he  is  God ;  there  is  none  else  beside  him,"  Deut. 
iv,  35.  "Thou  art  God  alone,"  Psalm  lxxxvi,  10.  "We  know  that 
an  idol  is  nothing  in  the  world,  and  there  is  none  other  God  but  one." 
Nor  is  this  stated  in  Scripture,  merely  to  exclude  all  other  creators, 
governors,  and  deities,  in  connection  with  men,  and  the  system  of  created 
things  which  we  behold ;  but  absolutely,  so  as  to  exclude  the  idea  of  the 
existence,  any  where,  of  more  than  one  Divine  nature. 

Of  this  unity,  the  proper  Scripture  notion  may  be  thus  expressed. 
Some  things  are  one  by  virtue  of  composition,  but  God  hath  no  parts, 
nor  is  compounded ;  but  is  a  pure  simple  Being.  Some  are  one  in 
kind,  but  admit  many  individuals  of  the  same  kind,  as  men,  angels,  and 
other  creatures ;  but  God  is  so  one  that  there  are  no  other  gods, 
though  there  are  other  beings.  Some  things  are  so  one,  as  that  there 
exists  no  other  of  the  same  kind,  as  are  one  sun,  one  moon,  one  world, 
one  heaven ;  yet  there  might  have  been  more,  if  it  had  pleased  Gcd  so 
to  will  it.  But  God  is  so  one,  that  there  is  not,  there  cannot  be, 
another  God.  He  is  one  only,  and  takes  up  the  Deity  so  fully,  as 
to  admit  no  fellow.  (Lawson's  Tlieo-Politica.) 

The  proof  of  this  important  doctrine  from  Scripture  is  short  and 
simple.  We  have  undoubted  proofs  of  a  revelation  from  the  Maker  and 
Governor  of  this  present  world.  Granting  him  to  be  wise  and  good, 
u  it  is  impossible  that  God  should  lie,"  and  his  own  testimony  assigns  to 
him  an  exclusive  Deity.  If  we  admit  the  authority  of  the  Scriptures, 
we  admit  a  Deity ;  if  we  admit  one  God,  we  exclude  all  others.  The 
truth  of  Scripture,  resting  as  we  have  seen  on  proofs  which  cannot  be 
resisted  without  uuiversal  skepticism,  and  universal  skepticism   being 

(5)  "  They  are  called  attributes,  because  God  attributes  them  to  and  affirms 
them  of  himself.  'Properties,  because  we  conceive  them  proper  to  God,  and  such 
as  can  be  predicated  only  of  him,  so  that  by  them  we  distinguish  him  from  all 
other  beings.  Perfections,  because  they  are  the  several  representations  of  that 
one  perfection  which  is  himself.  Names  and  Terms,  because  they  express  and 
signify  something  of  his  essence.  Notions,  because  tbey  are  so  many  apprehen. 
sions  of  his  being  as  we  conceive  of  him  in  our  minds."  (Lawson's  Theo- 
Politica.) 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  337 

proved  to  be  impossible  by  the  common  conduct  of  even  the  most 
skeptical  men,  the  proof  of  the  Divine  unity  rests  precisely  on  the  same 
basis,  and  is  sustained  by  the  same  certain  evidence. 

On  this  as  on  the  former  point  however  there  is  much  rational  con- 
firmation, to  which  revelation  has  given  us  the  key;  though  without 
that,  and  even  in  its  strongest  form,  it  may  be  concluded  from  the  pre- 
valence of  polytheism  among  the  generality  of  nations,  and  of  dualism 
among  others,  that  the  human  mind  would  have  had  but  too  indistinct  a 
view  of  this  kind  of  evidence  to  rest  in  a  conclusion  so  necessary  fn 
true  religion  and  to  settled  rules  of  morals. 

To  prove  the  unity  of  God  several  arguments  a  priori  have  been 
made  use  of;  to  which  mode  of  proof,  provided  the  argument  itself  be 
logical,  no  objection  lies.  For  though  it  appears  absurd  to  attempt  to 
prove  a  priori  the  existence  of  a  first  cause,  seeing  that  nothing  can 
either  in  order  of  time  or  order  of  nature  be  prior  to  him,  or  be  con- 
ceived prior  to  him ;  yet  the  existence  of  an  independent  and  self-exist- 
ent cause  of  all  things  being  made  known  to  us  by  revelation,  and  con- 
firmed by  the  phenomena  of  actual  and  dependent  existence,  a  ground 
is  laid  for  considering,  from  this  fact,  which  is  antecedent  in  order  of 
nature,  though  not  in  order  of  time,  the  consequent  attributes  with  which 
such  a  Being  must  be  invested. 

Among  the  arguments  of  this  class  to  prove  the  Divine  unity,  the 
following  are  the  principal : — 

Dr.  S.  Clarke  argues  from  his  view  of  the  necessary  existence  of  the 
Divine  Being  : — "  Necessity,"  he  observes,  "  absolute  in  itself,  is  simple 
and  uniform,  and  universal,  without  any  possible  difference,  diffbrmity, 
or  variety  whatsoever ;  and  all  variety  or  difference  of  existence  must 
needs  arise  from  some  external  cause,  and  be  dependent  upon  it."  Andi 
again :  "  To  suppose  two  or  more  distinct  beings  existing  of  themselves! 
necessarily,  and  independent  of  each  other,  implies  this  contradiction, 
that  each  of  them  being  independent  of  each  other,  they  may  either  of 
them  be  supposed  to  exist  alone,  so  that  it  will  be  no  contradiction  to 
suppose  the  other  not  to  exist,  and  consequently  neither  of  them  will  be 
necessarily  existing."  (Demonstration,  Prop.  7.)  These  arguments 
being  however  wholly  founded  upon  that  peculiar  notion  of  necessary 
existence,  which  is  advocated  by  the  author,  derive  their  whole  authority 
from  the  principle  itself,  to  which  some  objections  have  been  offered. 

The  argument  from  space  must  share  the  same  fate.  If  space  be  an 
infinite  attribute  of  an  infinite  substance,  and  an  essential  attribute  of 
Deity,  then  the  existence  of  one  infinite  substance,  and  one  only,  may 
probably  be  argued  from  the  existence  of  this  infinite  property ;  but  if 
space  be  a  mere  negation,  and  neither  substance  nor  attribute,  which  has 
been  sufficiently  proved  by  the  writers  before  referred  to,  then  it  is  worth 
nothing  as  a  proof  of  the  unity  of  God. 

Vol.  I.  83 


33S  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

Wollasion  argues,  that  if  two  or  more  independent  beings  exist,  their 
natures  must  be  the  same  or  different ;  if  different,  either  contrary  or 
various.  If  contrary,  each  must  destroy  the  operations  of  the  other ; 
if  various,  one  must  have  what  the  other  wants,  and  both  cannot  be 
perfect.  If  their  nature  be  perfectly  the  same,  then  they  would  coin- 
cide, and  indeed  be  but  one,  though  called  two.  (Religion  of  Nature.) 

Bishop  Wilkins  says,  if  God  be  an  infinitely  perfect  being,  it  is 
impossible  to  imagine  two  such  beings  at  the  same  time,  because  they 
must  have  several  perfections,  or  the  same.  If  the  former,  neither  of 
them  can  be  God,  because  neither  of  them  has  all  possible  perfections. 
If  they  have  both  equal  perfections,  neither  of  them  can  be  absolutely 
perfect,  because  it  is  not  so  great  to  have  the  same  equal  perfections 
in  common  with  another,  as  to  be  superior  to  all  others.  (Principles  of 
Natural  Religion.) 

"  The  nature  of  God,"  says  Bishop  Pearson,  "  consists  in  this,  that 
he  is  the  prime  and  original  cause  of  all  things,  as  an  independent 
being,  upon  whom  all  things  else  depend,  and  likewise  the  ultimate  end 
or  final  cause  of  all ;  but  in  this  sense,  two  prime  causes  are  unima- 
ginable, and  for  all  things  to  depend  on  one,  and  yet  for  there  to  be 
more  independent  beings  than  one,  is  a  clear  contradiction."  (Exposition 
of  the  Creed.) 

The  best  argument  of  this  kind  is  however  that  which  arises  from 
absolute  perfection,  the  idea  of  which  forces  itself  upon  our  minds,  when 
we  reflect  upon  the  nature  of  a  self-existent  and  independent  Being. 
Such  a  being  there  is,  as  is  sufficiently  proved  from  the  existence  of 
beings  dependent  and  derived  ;  and  it  is  impossible  to  admit  that  without 
concluding,  that  he  who  is  independent  and  underived,  who  subsists 
wholly  and  only  of  himself  without  depending  on  any  other,  must  owe 
this  absoluteness  to  so  peculiar  an  excellency  of  its  own  nature  as  we 
cannot  well  conceive  to  be  less  than  that  by  which  it  comprehends  in 
itself  the  most  boundless  and  unlimited  fulness  of  being,  life,  power,  or 
whatsoever  can  be  conceived  under  the  name  of  a  perfection.  "  To 
such  a  being  infinity  may  be  justly  ascribed ;  and  infinity,  not  extrin- 
sically  considered  with  respect  to  time  and  place,  but  intrinsically,  as 
imparting  bottomless  profundity  of  essence,  and  the  full  confluence  of 
all  kinds  and  degrees  of  perfection  without  bound  or  limit."  (Howe's 
Living  Temple.)  "  Limitation  is  the  effect  of  some  superior  cause, 
which,  in  the  present  instance,  there  cannot  be  :  consequently,  to  sup- 
pose limits  where  there  can  be  no  limiter,  is  to  suppose  an  effect  with- 
out a  cause.  For  a  being  to  be  limited  or  deficient  in  any  respect,  is  to 
be  dependent  in  that  respect  on  some  other  being  which  gave  it  just 
so  much  and  no  more  ;  consequently  that  being  which  in  no  respect 
depends  upon  any  other,  is  in  no  respect  limited  or  deficient.  In  all 
beings  capable  of  increase  or  diminution,  and  consequently  incapable  of 


SECOND. J  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  339 

perfection  or  absolute  infinity,  limitation  or  defect  is  indeed  a  necessary 
consequence  of  existence,  and  is  only  a  negation  of  that  perfection 
which  is  wholly  incompatible  with  their  nature ;  and  therefore  in  these 
beings  it  requires  no  farther  cause.  But  in  a  being  naturally  capable 
of  perfection  or  absolute  infinity,  all  imperfection  or  finiteness,  as  it 
cannot  How  from  the  nature  of  that  being,  seems  to  require  some  ground 
or  reason ;  which  reason,  as  it  is  foreign  from  the  being  itself,  must  be 
the  effect  of  some  other  external  cause,  and  consequently  cannot  have 
place  in  the  first  cause.  That  the  self-existent  being  is  capable  of  per- 
lection  or  absolute  infinity  must  be  granted,  because  he  is  manifestly  the 
subject  of  one  infinite  or  perfect  attribute,  namely,  eternity  or  absolute 
invariable  existence.  In  this  respect  his  existence  is  perfect,  and  there- 
fore it  may  be  perfect  in  every  other  respect  also.  Now  that  which  is 
,the  subject  of  one  infinite  attribute  or  perfection,  must  have  all  its  attri- 
butes infinitely  or  in  perfection ;  since  to  have  any  perfections  in  a 
finite  limited  manner,  when  the  subject  and  these  perfections  are  both 
capable  of  strict  infinity,  would  be  the  fore-mentioned  absurdity  of 
positive  limitation  without  a  cause.  To  suppose  this  eternal  and  inde- 
pendent Being  limited  in  or  by  its  own  nature,  is  to  suppose  some  ante- 
cedent nature  or  limiting  quality  superior  to  that  being,  to  the  existence 
of  wnuch  no  thing,  no  quality,  is  in  any  respect  antecedent  or  superior. 
The  same  method  of  reasoning  will  prove  knowledge  and  every  other 
perfection  *o  Ikj  infinite  in  the  Deity,  when  once  we  have  proved  that 
perfection  to  oelong  to  him  at  all ;  at  least  it  will  show,  that  to  suppose 
tt  limited  SB  unreasonable,  since  we  can  find  no  manner  of  ground  for 
limitation  m  any  aspect ;  and  this  is  as  far  as  we  need  go,  or  perhaps 
as  naiurai  ligh'  «vjt  lead  us."  (Dr.  Gleig.) 

The  connection  between  the  steps  of  the  argument  from  the  self 
existence  and  infinity  of  the  Deity  to  his  unity,  may  be  thus  traced. 
There  is  actually  existing  an  absolute,  entire  fulness  of  wisdom,  power, 
and  of  all  other  perfection.  This  absolute  entire  fulness  of  perfection 
is  infinite.  This  infinite  perfection  must  have  its  seat  somewhere.  Its 
primary  original  seat  can  be  nowhere  but  in  necessary  self-subsisting 
i?eing.  If  then  we  suppose  a  plurality  of  self-originate  beings  concurring  to 
u  -re  up  the  seat  or  subject  of  this  infinite  perfection,  each  one  must  either 
be  01  finite  and  partial  perfection,  or  infinite  and  absolute.  Infinite  and 
absolute  it  cannot  be,  because  one  self-originate,  infinitely  and  absolutely 
perfect  being,  will  necessarily  comprehend  all  perfection,  and  leave 
nothing  to  the  rest.  Nor  finite,  because  many  finites  can  never  make 
one  infinite ;  nor  many  broken  parcels  or  fragments  of  perfection  ever 
make  infinite  and  absolute  perfection,  even  though  their  number,  if  that 
were  possible,  were  infinite. 

To  these  arguments  from  the  Divine  nature,  proofs  of  his  unity  are  to 
be  drawn  from  his  works.    While  we  have  no  revelation  of  or  from  any 


340  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

other  being  than  from  him  whom  we  worship  as  God  ;  so  the  frame  and 
constitution  of  nature  present  us  with  a  harmony  and  order  which  show, 
that  their  Creator  and  Preserver  is  but  one.  We  see  but  one  mil  and 
one  intelligence,  and  therefore  there  is  but  one  Being.  The  light  of  this 
truth  must  have  been  greatly  obscured  to  heathens,  who  knew  not 
how  to  account  for  the  admixture  of  good  and  evil  which  are  in  the 
world,  and  many  of  them  therefore  supposed  both  a  good  and  an  evil 
deity.  To  us,  however,  who  know  how  to  account  for  this  fact  from 
the  relation  in  which  man  stands  to  the  moral  government  of  an  offended 
Deity,  and  the  connection  of  this  present  state  with  another ;  and  that  it 
is  to  man  a  state  of  correction  and  discipline ;  not  only  is  this  diffi- 
culty removed,  but  additional  proof  is  afforded,  that  the  Creator  and  the. 
Ruler  of  the  world  is  but  one  Being.  If  two  independent  beings  of  equal 
power  concurred  to  make  the  world,  the  good  and  the  evil  would  be 
equal ;  but  the  good  predominates. — Between  the  good  and  the  evil  there 
could  also  be  no  harmony  or  connection ;  but  we  plainly  see  evil  sub- 
jected to  the  purposes  of  benevolence,  and  so  to  accord  with  it,  which  at 
once  removes  the  objection. 

"  Of  the  unity  of  the  Deity,"  says  Paley,  "  the  proof  is  the  uniformity 
of  plan  observable  in  the  universe.  The  universe  itself  is  a  system ; 
each  part  either  depending  upon  other  parts,  or  being  connected  with 
other  parts  by  some  common  law  of  motion,  or  by  the  presence  of  some 
common  substance.  One  principle  of  gravitation  causes  a  stone  to  drop 
toward  the  earth,  and  the  moon  to  wheel  round  it.  One  law  of  attrac- 
tion carries  all  the  different  planets  about  the  sun.  This,  philosophers 
demonstrate.  There  are  also  other  points  of  agreement  among  them, 
which  may  be  considered  as  marks  of  the  identity  of  their  origin,  and 
of  their  intelligent  author.  In  all  are  found  the  conveniency  and  stability 
derived  from  gravitation.  They  all  experience  vicissitudes  of  days  and 
nights,  and  changes  of  season.  They  all,  at  least  Jupiter,  Mars,  and 
Venus,  have  the  same  advantages  from  their  atmospheres  as  we  have. 
In  all  the  planets,  the  axes  of  rotation  are  permanent.  Nothing  is  more 
probable  than  that  the  same  attracting  influence,  acting  according  to  the 
same  rule,  reaches  to  the  fixed  stars  ;  but  if  this  be  only  probable,  another 
tiling  is  certain,  namely,  that  the  same  element  of  light  does.  The  light 
from  a  fixed  star  affects  our  eyes  in  the  same  manner,  is  refracted  and 
reflected  according  to  the  same  laws,  as  the  light  of  a  candle.  The 
velocity  of  the  light  of  the  fixed  stars  is  also  the  same,  as  the  velocity 
of  the  light  of  the  sun,  reflected  from  the  satellites  of  Jupiter.  The 
heat  of  the  sun,  in  kind,  differs  nothing  from  the  heat  of  a  coal  fire. 

"  In  our  own  globe  the  case  is  clearer.  New  countries  are  continu- 
ally discovered,  but  the  old  laws  of  nature  are  always  found  in  them ; 
new  plants,  perhaps,  or  animals,  but  always  in  company  with  plants  and 
animals  which  we  already  know;  and  always  possessing  many  of  I  he 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  341 

same  general  properties.  We  never  get  among  such  original  or  totally 
different  modes  of  existence,  as  to  indicate  that  we  are  come  into  the 
province  of  a  different  Creator,  or  under  the  direction  of  a  different  will. 
In  truth,  the  same  order  of  things  attends  us  wherever  we  go.  The  ele- 
ments act  upon  one  another,  electricity  operates,  the  tides  rise  and  fall, 
the  magnetic  needle  elects  its  position  in  one  region  of  the  earth  and  sea 
as  well  as  in  another.  One  atmosphere  invests  all  parts  of  the  globe, 
and  connects  all ;  one  sun  illuminates  ;  one  moon  exerts  its  specific 
attraction  upon  all  parts.  If  there  be  a  variety  in  natural  effects,  as,  for 
example,  in  the  tides  of  different  seas,  that  very  variety  is  the  result  of 
the  same  cause,  acting  under  different  circumstances.  In  many  cases 
this  is  proved ;  in  all,  is  probable. 

*  "  The  inspection  and  comparison  of  living  forms  add  to  this  argument 
examples  without  number.  Of  all  large  terrestrial  animals,  the  struc- 
ture is  very  much  alike  ;  their  senses  nearly  the  same ;  their  natural 
functions  and  passions  nearly  the  same  ;  their  viscera  nearly  the  same, 
both  in  substance,  shape,  and  office ;  digestion,  nutrition,  circulation, 
secretion,  go  on,  in  a  similar  manner,  in  all ;  the  great  circulating  fluid 
is  the  same ;  for  I  think  no  difference  has  been  discovered  in  the  pro- 
perties of  blood  from  whatever  animal  it  be  drawn.  The  experiment  of 
transfusion  proves  that  the  blood  of  one  animal  will  serve  for  another. 
The  skeletons  also  of  the  larger  terrestrial  animals  show  particular 
varieties,  but  still  under  a  great  general  affinity.  The  resemblance  is 
somewhat  less,  yet  sufficiently  evident,  between  quadrupeds  and  birds. 
They  are  all  alike  in  five  respects,  for  one  in  which  they  differ. 

"  In  fish,  which  belong  to  another  department,  as  it  were,  of  nature, 
the  points  of  comparison  become  fewer.  But  we  never  lose  sight  of 
our  analogy ;  e.  g.  we  still  meet  with  a  stomach,  a  liver,  a  spine ;  with 
bile  and  bl^od ;  with  teeth  ;  with  eyes,  which  eyes  are  only  slightly 
varied  from  our  own,  and  which  variation,  in  truth  demonstrates,  not  an 
interruption,  but  a  continuance  of  the  same  exquisite  plan ;  for  it  is  the 
adaptation  of  the  organ  to  the  element,  namely,  to  the  different  refrac- 
tion of  light  passing  into  the  eye  out  of  a  denser  medium.  The  pro- 
vinces, also,  themselves  of  water  and  earth,  are  connected  by  the  species 
of  animals  which  inhabit  both  ;  and  also  by  a  large  tribe  of  aquatic  ani- 
mals, which  closely  resemble  the  terrestrial  in  their  internal  structure ; 
I  mean  the  cetaceous  tribe  which  have  hot  blood,  respiring  lungs,  bowels, 
and  other  essential  parts,  like  those  of  land  animals.  This  similitude 
surely  bespeaks  the  same  creation,  and  the  same  Creator. 

"  Insects  and  shell  fish  appear  to  me  to  differ  from  other  classes  of 
animals  the  most  widely  of  any.  Yet  even  here,  beside  many  points  oe 
particular  resemblance,  there  exists  a  general  relation  of  a  peculiar  kind. 
It  is  the  relation  of  inversion  ;  the  law  of  contrariety :  namely,  that 
whereas  in  other  animals,  the  bones  to  which  the  muscles  are  attached 


342  THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES.  [PART 

lie  within  the  body ;  in  insects  and  shell  fish  they  lie  on  the  outside 
of  it.  The  shell  of  a  lobster  performs  to  the  animal  the  office  of  a  bone, 
by  furnishing  to  the  tendons  that  fixed  basis  or  immovable  fulcrum,  with, 
out  which  mechanically  they  could  not  act.  The  crust  of  an  insect  is 
its  shell,  and  answers  the  like  purpose.  The  shell  also  of  an  oyster 
stands  in  the  place  of  a  bone  ;  the  basis  of  the  muscles  being  fixed  to  it, 
in  the  same  manner  as,  in  other  animals,  they  are  fixed  to  the  bones. 
All  which  (under  wonderful  varieties,  indeed,  and  adaptations  of  form) 
confesses  an  imitation,  a  remembrance,  a  carrying  on  of  the  same  plan." 

If  in  a  large  house,  wherein  are  many  mansions  and  a  vast  variety  of 
inhabitants,  there  appears  exact  order,  all  from  the  highest  to  the  lowest 
continually  attending  their  proper  business,  and  all  lodged  and  constantly 
provided  for  suitably  to  their  several  conditions,  we  find  ourselves  obliged 
to  acknoweldge  one  wise  economy ;  and  if  in  a  great  city  or  common- 
wealth there  is  a  perfectly  regular  administration,  so  that  not  only  the 
whole  society  enjoys  an  undisturbed  peace,  but  every  member  has  a 
station  assigned  him  which  he  is  best  qualified  to  fill,  the  unenvied  chiefs 
constantly  attending  their  more  important  cares,  served  by  the  busy 
inferiors,  who  have  all  a  suitable  accommodation,  and  food  convenient 
for  them,  the  very  meanest  ministering  to  the  public  utility,  and  protected 
by  the  public  care  ; — if,  I  say,  in  such  a  community  we  must  conclude 
there  is  a  ruling  counsel,  which  if  not  naturally  yet  is  politically  one, 
and  unless  united,  could  not  produce  such  harmony  and  order ;  much 
more  have  we  reason  to  recognize  one  governing  Intelligence  in  the 
earth,  in  which  there  are  so  many  ranks  of  beings  disposed  of  in  the  most 
convenient  manner,  having  all  their  several  provinces  appointed  to  them, 
and  their  several  kinds  and  degrees  of  enjoyment  liberally  provided  for, 
without  encroaching  upon,  but  rather  being  mutually  useful  to  each  other, 
according  to  a  settled  and  obvious  subordination.  What  else  can  account 
for  this  but  a  sovereign  wisdom,  a  common  provident  nature  presiding 
over,  and  caring  for  the  whole?    (Aberneihy's  Sermons.) 

The  importance  of  the  doctrine  of  the  Divine  unity  is  obvious.  The 
existence  of  one  God  is  the  basis  of  all  true  religion.  Polytheism  con- 
founds and  unsettles  all  moral  distinction,  divides  and  destroys  obligation, 
and  takes  away  all  sure  trust  and  hope  from  man.  There  is  one  God 
who  created  us ;  we  are  therefore  his  property,  and  bound  to  him  by  an 
absolute  obligation  of  obedience.  He  is  the  sole  Ruler  of  the  world,  and 
his  one  immutable  will  constitutes  the  one  immutable  law  of  our  actions, 
and  thus  questions  of  morality  are  settled  on  permanent  foundations. 
To  him  alone  we  owe  repentance,  and  confession  of  sin ;  to  one  Being 
alone  we  are  directed  to  look  for  pardon,  in  the  method  he  has  appointed  ; 
and  if  he  be  at  peace  with  us,  we  need  fear  the  wrath  of  no  other,  for  he 
is  supreme :  we  are  not  at  a  loss  among  a  crowd  of  supposed  deities,  to 
which  of  them  we  shall  turn  in  trouble ;  he  alone  receives  prayer,  and 


SECOND.!  THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES.  343 

he  is  the  sole  and  sufficient  object  of  trust.  When  we  know  Him,  we 
know  a  Being  of  absolute  perfection,  and  need  no  other  friend  or 
refuge. 

Among  the  discoveries  made  to  us  by  Divine  revelation,  we  find  not 
only  declarations  of  the  existence  and  unity  of  God,  but  of  his  nature  or 
substance,  which  is  plainly  affirmed  to  be  spiritual;  "  God  is  a  Spirit." 
The  sense  of  the  Scriptures  in  this  respect  cannot  be  mistaken.  Innu- 
merable passages  and  allusions  in  them  show,  that  the  terms  spirit  and 
body,  or  matter,  are  used  in  the  popular  sense  for  substances  of  a  perfectly 
distinct  kind,  and  which  are  manifested  by  distinct  and  in  many  respects 
opposite  and  incpmmunicable  properties :  that  the  former  only  can  per- 
ceive, think,  reason,  will,  and  act ;  that  the  latter  is  passive,  inpercipient, 
divisible,  and  corruptible.  Under  these  views,  and  in  this  popular  lan- 
guage, God  is  spoken  of  in  Holy  Writ.  He  is  spirit,  not  body ;  mind, 
not  matter.  He  is  pure  spirit,  unconnected  even  with  bodily  form  or 
organs ;  "  the  invisible  God,  whom  no  man  hath  seen  nor  can  see,"  an 
immaterial,  incorruptible,  impassible  substance,  an  immense  mind  or 
intelligence,  self  acting,  self  moving,  wholly  above  the  perception  of 
bodily  sense  ;  free  from  the  imperfections  of  matter,  and  all  the  imfirmi- 
ties  of  corporeal  beings  ;  far  more  excellent  than  any  finite  and  created 
spirits,,  because  their  Creator,  and  therefore  styled,  "the  Fatlier  of 
spirits,"  and  "  tiie  God  of  the  spirits  of  all  flesh." 

Such  is  the  express  testimony  of  Scripture  as  to  the  Divine  nature. 
That  the  distinction  which  it  holds  between  matter  and  spirit  should  be 
denied  or  disregarded  by  infidel  philosophers,  is  not  a  matter  of  surprise, 
since  it  is  easy  and  as  consistent  in  them  to  materialize  God  as  man. 
But  that  the  attributes  of  spirit  should  have  been  ascribed  to  matter 
by  those  who  nevertheless  profess  to  admit  the  authority  of  the  Biblical 
revelation,  as  in  the  case  of  the  modern  Unitarians  and  some  others,  is 
an  instance  of  singular  inconsistency.  It  shows  with  what  daring  an 
unhallowed  philosophy  will  pursue  its  speculations,  and  warrants  the  con- 
clusion, that  the  Scriptures  in  such  cases  are  not  acknowledged  upon 
their  own  proper  principles,  but  only  so  far  as  they  are  supposed  to  agree 
with,  or  not  to  oppose  the  philosophic  system  which  such  men  may  have 
adopted.  For  hesitate  as  they  may,  to  deny  the  distinction  between  matter 
and  spirit,  is  to  deny  the  spirituality  of  God ;  and  to  contradict  the  dis- 
tinction which,  as  to  man,  is  constantly  kept  uq  in  every  part  of 
the  Bible,  the  distinction  between  flesh  and  spirit.  [To  assert  that  con- 
sciousness, thought,  volition,  &c,  are  the  results  of  organization,  is  to  deny 
also  what  the  Scripture  so  expressly  affirms,  that  the  souls  of  men  exist 
in  a  disembodied  state  :  and  that  in  this  disembodied  state,  not  only  do 
they  exist,  but  that  they  think  and  feel,  and  act  without  any  diminution  of 
their  energy  or  capacity/*  The  immateriality  of  the  Divine  Being  may 
therefore  be  considered  as  tf  point  of  great  importance,  not  only  as  it  affects 


344  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

our  views  of  his  nature  and  attributes ;  but  because  when  once  it  is 
established  that  there  exists  a  pure  Spirit,  living,  intelligent,  and  invested 
with  moral  properties,  the  question  of  the  immateriality  of  the  human 
soul  may  be  considered  as  almost  settled.  Those  who  deny  that,  must 
admit  that  the  Deity  is  material  ;  or  if  they  start  at  this,  they  must  be 
convicted  of  the  unphilosophical  and  absurd  attempt  to  invest  a  substance 
allowed  to  be  of  an  entirely  different  nature,  the  body  of  man,  with 
those  attributes  of  intelligence  and  volition  which,  in  the  case  of  the 
Divine  Being,  they  have  allowed  to  be  the  properties  of  pure,  unem- 
bodied  spirit.  The  propositions  are  totally  inconsistent,  for  they  who 
believe  that  God  is  wholly  an  immaterial,  and  that  man  is  wholly  a 
material  being,  admit  that  spirit  is  intelligent,  and  that  matter  is  intelli- 
gent. They  cannot  then  be  of  different  essences,  and  if  the  premises 
be  followed  out  to  their  legitimate  conclusion,  either  that  which  thinks 
in  man  must  be  allowed  to  be  spiritual,  or  a  material  Deity  must  follow. 
The  whole  truth  of  revelation,  both  as  to  God  and  his  creature  man, 
must  be  acknowledged,  or  the  Atheism  of  Spinoza  and  Hobbes  must  be 
admitted. 

The  decision  of  Scripture  on  this  point  is  not  to  be  shaken  by  human 
reasoning,  were  it  more  plausible  in  its  attempt  to  prove  that  matter  is 
capable  of  originating  thought,  and  that  mind  is  a  mere  result  of  organi- 
zation. The  evidence  from  reason  is  however  highly  confirmatory  of 
the  absolute  spirituality  of  the  nature  of  God,  and  of  the  unthinking 
nature  of  matter. 

If  we  allow  a  First  Cause  at  all,  we  must  allow  that  cause  to  be  intel- 
ligent.  This  has  already  been  proved,  from  the  design  and  contrivance 
manifested  in  his  works.  The  first  argument  for  the  spirituality  of 
God  is  therefore  drawn  from  his  intelligence,  and  it  rests  upon  this  prin- 
ciple, that  intelligence  is  not  a  property  of  matter. 

With  material  substance  we  are  largely  acquainted  ;  and  as  to  the 
great  mass  of  material  bodies,  we  have  the  means  of  knowing  that  they 
are  wholly  unintelligent.  This  cannot  be  denied  of  every  unorganized 
portion  of  matter.  Its  essential  properties  are  found  to  be  solidity,  ex- 
tension, divisibility,  mobility,  passiveness,  &c.  In  all  its  forms  and 
mutations,  from  the  granite  rock  to  the  yielding  atmosphere  and  the 
rapid  lightning,  these  essential  properties  are  discovered ;  they  take  an 
infinite  variety  of  accidental  modes,  but  give  no  indication  of  intelligence, 
or  approach  to  intelligence.  If  then  to  know  be  a  property  of  matter,  it 
is  clearly  not  an  essential  property,  inasmuch  as  it  is  agreed  by  all,  that 
vast  masses  of-  this  substance  exist  without  this  property,  and  it  follows, 
that  it  must  be  an  accidental  one.  This  therefore  would  be  the  first 
absurdity  into  which  those  would  be  driven  who  suppose  the  Divine  na- 
ture to  be  material,  that  as  intelligence,  if  allowed  to  be  a  property  of 
matter,  is  an  accidental  and  not  an  essential  property,  on  this  theory  it 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  345 

would  be  possible  to  conceive  of  the  existence  of  a  Deity  without  any 
intelligence  at  all.  For  take  away  any  property  from  a  subject  which 
is  not  essential  to  it,  and  its  essence  still  remains ;  and  if  intelligence, 
which  in  this  view  is  but  an  accidental  attribute  of  Deity,  were  annihi- 
lated, a  Deity  without  perception,  thought,  or  knowledge,  would  still  re- 
main. So  monstrous  a  conclusion  shows,  that  if  a  God  be  at  all  allowed, 
the  absolute  spirituality  of  his  nature  must  inevitably  follow.  For  if  we 
cannot  suppose  a  Deity  without  intelligence,  then  do  we  admit  intelli- 
gence to  be  one  of  his  essential  attributes ;  and,  as  it  is  easy  for  every 
one  to  observe  that  this  is  not  an  essential  property  of  matter,  the  sub- 
stance to  which  it  is  essential  cannot  be  material. 

If  the  unthinking  nature  of  unorganized  matter  furnishes  an  argu- 
ment in  favour  of  the  spirituality  of  Deity,  the  attempt  to  prove  from 
the  fact  of  intelligence  being  found  in  connection  with  matter  in  an 
organized  form,  that  intelligence,  under  certain  modifications,  is  a  pro- 
perty of  matter,  may  from  its  fallacy  be  also  made  to  yield  its  evidence 
in  favour  of  the  truth. 

The  position  assumed  is,  that  intelligence  is  the  result  of  material 
organization.  This  at  least  is  not  true  of  every  form  of  organized  mat- 
ter. Of  the  unintelligent  character  of  vegetables  we  have  the  same 
evidence  as  of  the  earth  on  which  we  tread.  The  organization  there- 
fore which  is  assumed  to  be  the  cause  of  thought,  is  that  which  is  found 
in  animals  ;  and  to  use  the  argument  of  Dr.  Priestley,  "  the  powers  of 
sensation,  or  perception,  and  thought,  as  belonging  to  man,  not  having 
been  found  but  in  conjunction  with  a  certain  organized  system  of  matter, 
the  conclusion  is  that  they  depend  upon  such  a  system."  It  need  not 
now  be  urged,  that  constant  connection  does  not  imply  necessary  con- 
nection ;  and  that  sufficient  reasons  may  be  given  to  prove  the  connec- 
tion alleged  to  be  accidental  and  arbitrary.  It  is  sufficient  in  the  first 
instance  to  deny  this  supposed  constant  connection  between  intellectual 
properties  and  systems  of  animal  organization  ;  and  thus  to  take  awav 
entirely  the  foundation  of  the  argument. 

Man  is  to  be  considered  in  two  states,  that  of  life,  and  that  of  death. 
In  one  he  thinks,  and  in  the  other  he  ceases  to  think  ;  and  yet  for  some 
time  after  death,  in  many  cases,  the  organization  of  the  human  frame 
continues  as  perfect  as  before.  All  do  not  die  of  organic  disease. 
Death  by  suffocation,  and  other  causes,  is  often  effected  without  any 
visible  violence  being  done  to  the  brain,  or  any  other  of  the  most  deli- 
cate organs.  This  is  a  well  established  fact ;  for  the  most  accurate  ana- 
tomical observation  is  not  able  to  discover,  in  such  cases  as  we  have  re- 
ferred to,  the  slightest  organic  derangement.  The  machine  has  been 
stopped,  but  the  machine  itself  has  suffered  no  injury ;  and  from  the 
period  of  death  to  the  time  when  the  matter  of  the  body  begins  to  sub- 
mit to  the  laws  of  chemical  decomposition,  its  organization  is  as  perfect 


346  THEOLOGICAL   INSTITUTES.  [PART 

as  during  life.  If  an  opponent  replies,  that  organic  violence  musf-  have 
been  sustained,  though  it  is  indiscernible,  he  begs  the  question,  and 
assumes  that  thought  must  depend  upon  organization,  the  very  point  in 
dispute.  If  more  modest,  he  says,  that  the  organs  may  have  suffered, 
he  can  give  no  proof  of  it ;  appearances  are  all  against  him.  And  if  he 
argues  from  the  phenomenon  of  the  connection  of  thought  with  organi- 
zation, grounding  himself  upon  what  is  visible  to  observation  only,  the 
argument  is  completely  repulsed  by  an  appeal  in  like  manner  to  the^ac^, 
that  the  organization  of  the  animal  frame  can  be  often  exhibited,  visibly 
unimpaired  by  those  causes  which  have  produced  death,  and  yet  incapa- 
ble of  thought  and  intelligence.  The  conclusion  therefore  is,  that  mere 
organization  cannot  be  the  cause  of  intelligence,  since  it  is  plain  that 
precisely  the  same  state  of  the  organs  shall  often  be  found  before  and 
after  death ;  and  yet,  without  any  violence  having  been  done  to  them,  in 
one  moment  man  shall  be  actually  intelligent,  and  in  the  next  incapable 
of  a  thought.  So  far  then  from  the  connection  between  mental  pheno- 
mena, and  the  arrangement  of  matter  in  the  animal  structure  being 
"constant"  the  ground  of  the  argument  of  Priestley  and  other  material- 
ists ;  it  is  often  visibly  broken  ;  for  a  perfect  organization  of  the  animal 
remains  after  perception  has  become  extinct. 
j  In  support  of  this  argument,  we  may  urge  the  representations  of 
/  Scripture,  upon  that  class  of  materialists  who  have  not  proceeded  to  the 
/  full  length  of  denying  its  authority.  Adam  was  formed  out  of  the  dust 
of  the  earth,  the  organism  of  his  frame  was  therefore  complete,  before 
he  became  "a  living  soul."  God  breathed  into  him  "the  breath  of 
lives,"  and  whatever  different  persons  may  understand  by  that  inspira- 
tion it  certainly  was  not  an  organizing  operation.  The  man  was  first 
formed  or  organized,  and  then  life  was  imparted.  Before  the  animating 
breath  was  inspired,  he  was  not  intelligent,  because  he  lived  not ;  yet 
the  organization  was  complete  before  either  life  or  the  power  of  percep- 
tion was  imparted ;  thought  did  not  arise  out  of  his  organic  structure, 
as  an  effect  from  its  cause. 

The  doctrine  that  mere  organization  is  the  cause  of  perception,  &c, 
being  clearly  untenable,  we  shall  probably  be  told,  that  the  subject  sup- 
posed in  the  argument,  is  a  living  organized  being.  If  so,  then  the 
proof  that  matter  can  think  drawn  from  organization  is  given  up,  and 
another  cause  of  the  phenomenon  of  intelligence  is  introduced.  This  is 
life,  and  the  argument  will  be  considerably  altered.  It  will  no  longer  be, 
as  we  have  before  quoted  it  from  Dr.  Priestley,  "  that  the  powers  of 
sensation  or  perception  and  thought,  never  having  been  found  but  in 
conjunction  with  a  certain  organized  system  of  matter,  the  conclusion  is 
that  they  depend  upon  such  a  system ;"  but  that  these  powers  not  hav- 
ing been  found  but  in  conjunction  with  animal  life,  they  depend  upon  that 
as  their  cause. 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL   INSTITUTES.  347 

What  then  is  life,  which  is  thus  exhibited  as  the  cause  of  intelligence, 
and  as  the  proof  that  matter  is  capable  of  perception  and  thought  ?  In 
its  largest  and  commonly  received  sense,  it  is  that  inherent  activity 
which  distinguishes  vegetable  and  animal  bodies  from  the  soils  in  which 
the  former  grow,  and  on  which  the  latter  tread.  A  vegetable  is  said  to 
live,  because  it  has  motion  within  itself,  and  is  capable  of  absorption, 
secretion,  nutrition,  growth,  and  the  reproduction  of  its  kind.  With  all 
this  it  exhibits  no  mental  phenomena,  no  sensation,  no  consciousness,  no 
volition,  no  reflection ;  in  a  word,  it  is  utterly  unintelligent.  We  have 
here  a  proof  then  as  satisfactory  as  our  argument  from  organization, 
that  life,  at  least  life  of  any  kind,  is  not  the  cause  of  intelligence,  for 
in  ten  thousand  instances  we  see  it  existing  in  bodies  to  which  it  imparts 
no  mental  properties  at  all. 

If  then  it  be  said  that  the  life  intended  as  the  cause  of  intelligence  is 
not  vegetable,  but  animal  life,  the  next  step  in  the  inquiry  is,  in  what  the 
life  of  an  animal  differs  from  that  of  a  vegetable  ;  and  if  we  go  into  the 
camp  of  the  enemy  himself,  we  shall  find  him  laying  it  down,  that  to 
animals  a  double  life  belongs,  the  organic  and  the  animal,  the  former  ot 
which  animals,  and  even  man,  has  only  in  common  with  the  vegetable. 
One  modification  of  life,  says  Bichat,  (upon  whose  scheme  our  modern 
materialists  have  modelled  their  arguments,)  is  common  to  vegetables 
and  animals,  the  other  peculiar  to  the  latter.  "  Compare  together  two 
individuals,  one  taken  from  each  of  these  kingdoms  :  one  exists  only 
within  itself,  has  no  other  relations  to  external  objects  than  those  of 
nutrition  ;  is  born,  grows,  and  perishes,  attached  to  the  soil  which  re- 
ceived its  germ.  The  other  joins  to  this  internal  life,  which  it  possesses 
in  a  still  higher  degree,  an  external  life,  which  establishes  numerous 
relations  between  it  and  the  neighbouring  objects,  unites  its  existence  to 
that  of  other  beings,  and  draws  it  near  to,  or  removes  it  from  them,  ac- 
cording to  its  wants  and  fears."  {Recherches  sur  la  vie  et  la  mort.)  This 
is  only  in  other  words  to  say,  that  there  is  one  kind  of  life  in  man,  which, 
as  in  the  vegetable,  is  the  cause  of  growth,  circulation,  assimilation, 
nutrition,  excretion,  and  similar  functions  ;  and  another  on  which  depend 
sensation,  the  passions,  will,  memory,  and  other  attributes  which  we 
attribute  to  spirit.  We  have  gained  then  by  this  distinction  another  step 
in  the  argument.  There  is  a  life  common  to  animals  and  to  vegetables. 
Whether  this  be  simple  mechanism  or  something  more,  matters  nothing 
to  the  conclusion ;  it  confers  neither  sensation,  nor  volition,  nor  reason. 
That  life  in  men,  and  in  the  inferior  animals,  which  is  common  to  them 
and  to  vegetables,  called,  by  Bichat  and  his  followers,  organic  life,  is 
evidently  not  the  cause  of  intelligence. 

What  then  is  that  higher  species  of  life  called  animal  life,  on  which 
we  are  told  our  mental  powers  depend  ?  And  here  the  French  materialist, 
whose  notions  have  been  so  readily  adopted  into  our  own  schools  of 


348  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

physiology,  shall  speak  for  himself.  "  The  functions  of  the  animal  form 
two  distinct  classes.  One  of  these  consists  of  an  habitual  succession  of 
assimilation  and  concretion,  by  which  it  is  constantly  transforming  into 
its  own  substance  the  particles  of  other  bodies,  and  then  rejecting  them 
when  they  have  become  useless.  By  the  other  he  perceives  surround- 
ing objects  ;  reflects  on  his  sensations,  performs  voluntary  motions  under 
their  influence,  and  generally  communicates,  by  the  voice,  his  pleasures 
or  pains  ;  his  desires  or  fears."  "  The  assembled  functions  of  the  second 
class  form  the  animal  life." 

This  strange  definition  of  life  has  been  adopted  by  Lawrence,  and 
other  disciples  of  the  French  school  of  materialism  ;  but  its  absurdity  as 
a  definition  is  obvious,  and  could  only  have  been  adopted  as  a  veil  of 
words  to  hide  a  conclusion  fatal  to  the  favourite  system.  So  far  from 
being  a  definition  of  life,  it  is  no  more  than  a  description  of  the 
"  functions"  of  a  vital  principle  or  power,  whatever  that  power  or  princi- 
ple may  be.  Function  is  a  manner  in  which  any  power  developes  itself, 
or  as  Lawrence,  the  disciple  of  Bichat,  has  properly  expressed  it,  "  a 
mode  of  action  ,•"  and  to  say  that  an  assemblage  of  the  modes  in  which 
any  thing  acts,  is  that  which  acts,  or  "  forms"  that  which  acts,  is  the 
greatest  possible  trifling  and  folly. 

But  Bichat  is  not  the  only  one  of  modern  materialists  who  refuse 
honestly  to  pursue  the  inquiry,  "  what  is  life  ?"  when  even  affecting  to 
describe  or  defend  it.  Cuvier,  another  great  authority  in  the  same 
school,  at  one  time  says,  that  be  life  what  it  may,  it  cannot  be  what  the 
vulgar  suppose  it,  a  particular  principle.  (Principe  particulier.)  In  ano- 
ther place  he  acknowledges  that  life  can  proceed  only  from  life.  (La 
vie  nai't  que  de  la  vie.)  Then  again  he  considers  it  an  internal  principle; 
(un  principe  interieur  d'entretien  et  de  reparation ;)  and  last  ol  all  says, 
what  Mr.  Lawrence  has  since  repeated  verbatim,  that  life  consists  in  the 
sum  total  of  all  the  functions.  (II  consiste  dans  l'ensemble  des  functions 
qui  servent  a  nourir  le  corps,  c'est  a  dire  la  digestion,  l'absorption,  la 
circulation,  &c.)  Thus  he  makes  life  a  cause  which  owes  its  existence 
to  its  own  operations,  and  consequently  a  cause  which,  had  it  not  ope- 
rated to  produce  itself,  had  never  operated  nor  existed  at  all !  (Vide 
Medical  Review,  Sept.  1822,  Art.  1.)  "It  is  truly  pitiful,"  says  a 
physiologist  of  other  opinions,  "  to  think  of  a  man  with  so  many  endow- 
ments, natural  and  acquired,  driven  as  if  blindfold  by  the  fashion  of  the 
times,  a  contemptible  vanity,  or  some  wretched  inclination,  endeavouiing 
to  support  with  all  his  energy  the  extravagant  idea  that  the  phenomena 
of  design  and  intelligence  displayed  in  the  form  and  structure  of  his 
species  might  have  been  the  effects  of  some  impulse  or  motion,  or  of 
some  group  of  functions,  as  digestion,  circulation,  respiration,  dec, 
which  have  accidentally  happened  to  meet  without  any  assignable  cause 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES.  349 

to  bring  them  together,  to  hold  them  together,  or  to  direct  them."   (Dr. 
Barclay  on  Life  and  Organization.) 

These  and  many  other  examples  are  in  proof,  that  the  cause  of  vital 
oroperties  cannot,  we  do  not  say  be  explained,  but  cannot  even  be  indi- 
cated on  the  material  system ;  and  we  are  no  nearer,  for  any  thing 
which  these  physiologists  say,  to  any  satisfactory  account  of  that  life 
which  is  peculiar  to  animals,  and  which  has  been  distinguished  from  the 
organic  life  that  is  common  to  them  and  to  vegetables.     It  is  not  the 
result  of  organization,  for  that  "  is  no  living  principle,  no  active  cause." 
"  An  organ  is  an  instrument.     Organization  therefore  is  nothing  more 
than  a  system  of  parts  so  constructed  and  arranged  as  to  co-operate  to 
one  common  purpose.     It  is  an  arrangement  of  instruments,  and  there 
must  be  something  beyond  to  bring  these  instruments  into  action."  (Ren. 
nelVs  Remarks  on  Skepticism.)    If  life  cannot  therefore  be  organization 
or  the  effect  of  it,  it  is  not  that  inherent,  mechanical,  and  chemical  mo- 
tion which  is  called  life  in  vegetables,  and  which  the  physiologists  have 
decided  to  be  the  same  kind  of  life  which  they  call  organic  in  animals ; 
for  even  the  materialist  acknowledges  that  to  be  a  different  species  of 
life  in  animals,  on  which  sensation,  volition,  and  passion  depend.    What 
then  is  it  ?    It  is  not  a  material  substance ;  in  that  all  agree.     It  is  not 
the  material  effect  of  the  material  cause,  organization ;  that  has  been 
shown  to  be  absurd.     It  is  not  that  mechanical  and  chemical  inherent 
motion  which  performs  so  many  functions  in  vegetables  and  in  animals, 
so  far  as  they  have  it  in  common  with  them ;  for  no  sensation  or  other 
mental  phenomena  are  allowed  to  result  from  these.     It  is  therefore 
plainly  no  material  cause  and  no  effect  of  matter  at  all ;  for  no  other 
hypothesis  remains  but  that  which  places  its  source  in  an  immaterial  sub- 
iect,  operating  upon  and  by  material  organs.     For,  to  quote  from  a 
writer  just  mentioned,  "  that  there  is  some  invisible  agent  in  every  living 
organized  system,  seems  to  be  an  inference  to  which  we  are  led  almost 
irresistibly.     When  we  see  an  animal  starting  from  its  sleep,  contrary 
to  the  known  laws  of  gravitation,  without  an  external  or  elastic  impulse, 
without  the  appearance  of  electricity,  galvanism,  magnetism,  or  chemical 
attraction :  when  we  see  it  afterward  moving  its  limbs  in  various  direc- 
tions, with  different  degrees  of  force  and  velocity,  sometimes  suspending 
and  sometimes  renewing  the  same  motions,  at  the  sound  of  a  word  or 
the  sight  of  a  shadow,  can  we  refrain  a  moment  from  thinking  that  the 
cause  of  these  phenomena  is  internal,  that  it  is  something  different  from 
the  body,  and  that  the  several  bodily  organs  are  nothing  more  than  the 
mere  instruments  which  it  employs  in  its  operations  ?    Not  instrument! 
indeed  that  can  be  manufactured,  purchased,  or  exchanged,  or  that  can 
at  pleasure  be  varied  in  form,  position,  number,  proportion,  or  magni- 
tude ;  not  instruments  whose  motions  are  dependent  upon  an  externa! 
impulse,  on  gravity,  elasticity,  magnetism,  galvanism,  on  electricity  or 


850  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PAKT 

chemical  attraction ;  but  instruments  of  a  peculiar  nature,  instruments 
that  grow,  that  are  moved  by  the  will,  and  which  can  be  regulated  and 
kept  in  repair  by  no  agent  but  the  one  for  which  they  were-  primarily 
destined ;  instruments  so  closely  related  to  that  agent,  that  the)  cannot 
be  injured,  handled  or  breathed  upon,  approached  by  cold,  by  wind,  by 
rain,  without  exciting  in  it  certain  sensations  of  pleasure  or  of  pain ; 
sensations  which,  if  either  unusual  or  excessive,  are  generally  accompa- 
nied with  joy  or  grief,  hopes  or  alarms  :  instruments,  in  short,  that  exert 
so  constant  and  powerful  reaction  on  the  agent  that  employs  them,  that 
they  modify  almost  every  phenomenon  which  it  exhibits,  and  to  such  an 
extent,  that  no  person  can  confidently  say  what  would  be  the  effect  of 
its  energies  if  deprived  of  instruments ;  or  what  would  be  the  effect  of 
its  energies  if  furnished  with  instruments  of  a  different  species,  or  if  fur- 
nished with  instruments  of  different  materials,  less  dependent  on  external 
circumstances,  and  less  subject  to  the  laws  of  gross  and  inert  matter." 
{Barclay  on  Life  and  Organization.) 

Life,  then,  whether  organic  or  animal,  is  not  the  cause  of  intelligence , 
and  thus  all  true  reasoning  upon  these  phenomena  brings  us  to  the  phi- 
losophy of  the  Scriptures,  that  the  presence  of  an  immaterial  soul  with 
the  body,  is  the  source  of  animal  life ;  and  that  the  separation  of  the 
soul  from  the  body  is  that  circumstance  which  causes  death.  (6)  Far- 
ther proofs  however  are  not  wanting,  that  matter  is  incapable  of  thought, 
and  that  its  various  qualities  are  inconsistent  with  mental  phenomena. 

"  Extension  is  a  universal  quality  of  matter ;  being  that  cohesion  and 
continuity  of  its  parts  by  which  a  body  occupies  space.  The  idea  of 
extension  is  gained  by  our  external  senses  of  sight  and  of  touch.  But 
thought  is  neither  visible  nor  tangible,  it  occupies  no  external  space,  it 
has  no  contiguous  or  cohering  parts.  A  mind  enlarged  by  education 
and  science,  a  memory  stored  with  the  richest  treasures  of  varied  know- 
1  idge,  occupies  no  more  space  than  that  of  the  meanest  and  most  illite- 
rate rustic. 

"  In  body  again  we  find  a  vis  inertia,  that  is,  a  certain  quality  by 
which  it  resists  any  change  in  its  present  state.  We  know  by  experi- 
ment, that  a  body,  when  it  has  received  an  impulse,  will  persevere  in  a 

(6)  The  celebrated  Hunter,  "in  searching  for  the  principle  of  life,  on  the  sup- 
position that  it  was  something  visible,  fruitlessly  enough  looked  for  it  in  the  blood, 
the  chyle,  the  brain,  the  lungs,  and  other  parts  of  the  body ;  but  not  finding  it  in 
any  of  them  exclusively,  concluded  that  it  must  be  a  consequence  of  the  union 
of  the  whole,  and  depend  upon  organism.  But  to  this  conclusion  he  could  not 
long  adhere,  after  observing  that  the  composition  of  matter  does  not  give  life ; 
and  that  a  dead  body  may  have  all  the  composition  it  ever  had.  Last  of  all,  he 
drew  the  true,  or  at  least  the  candid  conclusion,  that  he  knew  nothing  about  the 
matter."  (Medico-Chirurgical  Review,  Sept.  1822.)  This  is  the  conclusion  to 
which  mere  philosophy  comes,  and  the  only  one  at  which  it  can  arrive,  till  it 
stoops  to  believe  that  there  is  true  philosophy  in  the  Scriptures. 


SECOND.]  TllEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTE  .  351 

direct  course  and  a  uniform  velocity,  until  its  motion  shall  be  either  dis- 
turned  or  retarded  by  some  external  power ;  and  again,  that,  being  at 
rest,  it  will  remain  so  for  ever,  unless  motion  shall  have  been  communi- 
cated to  it  from  without.  Since  matter  therefore  necessarily  resists  all 
ciiange  of  its  present  state,  its  motion  and  its  rest  are  purely  passive ; 
spontaneous  motion,  therefore,  must  have  some  other  origin.  Nor  is 
this  spontaneous  motion  to  be  attributed  to  the  simple  powers  of  life,  for 
we  have  seen  that  in  the  life  of  vegetation  there  is  no  spontaneous  mo- 
tion ;  the  plant  has  no  power  either  to  remove  itself  out  of  the  position 
in  which  it  is  fixed,  or  even  to  accelerate  or  retard  the  motion  which 
takes  place  within  it.  Nor  has  man  himself,  in  a  sleep  perfectly  sound, 
the  power  of  locomotion  any  more  than  a  plant,  nor  any  command  over 
the  various  active  processes  which  are  going  on  within  his  own  body. 
But  when  he  is  awake,  he  will  rise  from  his  resting  place — if  mere  mat- 
ter, whether  living  or  dead  were  concerned,  he  would  have  remained 
there  like  a  plant  or  a  stone  for  ever.  He  will  walk  forward — he  will 
change  his  course — he  will  stop.  Can  matter,  even  though  endowed 
with  the  life  of  vegetation,  perform  any  such  acts  as  these  ?  Here  is 
motion  fairly  begun  without  any  external  impulse,  and  slopped  without 
any  external  obstacle.  The  activity  of  a  plant,  on  the  contrary,  is  nei- 
ther spontaneous  nor  locomotive ;  it  is  derived  in  regular  succession 
from  parent  substances,  and  it  can  be  stopped  only  by  external  obstacles, 
such  as  the  disturbance  of  the  organization.  A  mass  even  of  living  mat- 
ter requires  something  beyond  its  own  powers  to  overcome  the  vis 
inertia  which  still  distinguishes  it,  and  to  produce  active  and  spontaneous 
motion. 

"  Hardness  and  impenetrability  are  qualities  of  matter ;  but  no  one 
of  common  sense,  without  a  very  palpable  metaphor,  could  ever  consider 
them  as  the  properties  of  thought. 

"  There  is  another  property  of  matter,  which  is,  if  possible,  still  more 
inconsistent  with  thought  than  any  of  the  former,  I  mean  its  divisibility. 
Let  us  take  any  material  substance,  the  brain,  the  heart,  or  any  other 
body  ;  which  we  would  have  endowed  with  thought,  and  inquire  of  what 
is  this  substance  composed.  It  is  the  aggregate  of  an  indefinite  number 
of  separable  and  separate  parts.  Now  the  experience  of  what  passes 
within  our  minds  will  inform  us,  that  unity  is  essential  to  a  thinking 
being.  That  consciousness  which  establishes  the  one  individual  being, 
which  every  man  knows  himself  to  be,  cannot,  without  a  contradiction 
in  terms,  be  separated,  or  divided.  No  man  can  think  in  two  separate 
places  at  the  same  time :  nor,  again,  is  his  consciousness  made  up  of  a 
number  of  separate  consciousnesses ;  as  the  solidity,  the  colour,  and 
motion  of  the  whole  body  is  made  up  of  the  distinct  solidities,  colours, 
and  motions  of  its  parts.  As  a  thinking  and  a  conscious  being,  then, 
man  must  be  essentially  one.     As  a  partaker  of  the  fife  of  vegetation 


352  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PAST 

he  is  separable  into  ten  thousand  different  parts.  If  then  it  is  the  brain 
of  a  man  which  is  conscious  and  thinks,  his  consciousness  and  thought 
must  be  made  up  of  as  many  separate  parts  as  there  are  particles  in  its 
material  substance,  which  is  contrary  to  common  sense  and  experience. 
Whatever,  therefore,  our  thought  may  be,  or  in  whatever  it  may  reside, 
it  is  essentially  indivisible  ;  and,  therefore,  wholly  inconsistent  with  the 
divisibility  of  a  material  substance. 

"  From  every  quality,  therefore,  of  matter,  with  which  we  are  ac- 
quainted, we  shall  be  warranted  in  concluding,  that  without  a  contra- 
diction in  terms,  it  cannot  be  pronounced  capable  of  thought.  A  think- 
ing substance  may  be  combined  with  a  stone,  a  tree,  or  an  animal  body  ; 
but  not  one  of  the  three  can  of  itself  become  a  thinking  being."  (Ren- 
nell  on  Skepticism.) 

"  The  notions  we  annex  to  the  words,  matter  and  mind,  as  is  well 
remarked  by  Dr.  Reid,  are  merely  relative.  If  I  am  asked,  what  1 
mean  by  matter?  I  can  only  explain  myself  by  saying,  it  is  that  which 
is  extended,  figured,  coloured,  movable,  hard  or  soft,  rough  or  smooth, 
hot  or  cold ; — that  is,  I  can  define  it  in  no  other  way  than  by  enume- 
rating its  sensible  qualities.  It  is  not  matter  or  body  which  I  perceive 
by  my  senses  ;  but  only  extension,  figure,  colour,  and  certain  other  quali- 
ties, which  the  constitution  of  my  nature  leads  me  to  refer  to  something 
which  is  extended,  figured,  and  coloured.  The  case  is  precisely  similar 
with  respect  to  mind.  We  are  not  immediately  conscious  of  its  exist- 
ence, but  we  are  conscious  of  sensation,  thought,  and  volition  ;  operations 
which  imply  the  existence  of  something  which  feels,  thinks,  and  wills. 
Every  man  too  is  impressed  with  an  irresistible  conviction,  that  all  these 
sensations,  thoughts,  and  volitions,  belong  to  one  and  the  same  being ; 
to  that  being,  which  he  calls  himself;  a  being  which  he  is  led,  by  the 
constitution  of  his  nature,  to  consider  as  something  distinct  from  his 
body,  and  as  not  liable  to  be  impaired  by  the  loss  or  mutilation  of  any 
of  his  organs. 

"  From  these  considerations,  it  appears  that  we  have  the  same  evi- 
dence for  the  existence  of  mind,  that  we  have  for  the  existence  of  body  ; 
nay,  if  there  be  any  difference  between  the  two  cases,  that  we  have 
stronger  evidence  for  it ;  inasmuch  as  the  one  is  suggested  to  us  by  the 
subjects  of  our  own  consciousness,  and  the  other  merely  by  the  objects 
of  our  perceptions."  (Stewarfs  Essays.) 

Farther  observations  on  the  immateriality  of  the  human  soul  will  be  ad- 
duced in  their  proper  place.  The  reason  why  the  preceding  argument  on 
Shis  subject  has  been  here  introduced,  is  not  only  that  the  spirituality  of 
the  Divine  nature  might  be  established  by  proving  that  intelligence  is  not 
a  material  attribute ;  but  to  keep  in  view  the  connection  between  the 
spirituality  of  God,  and  that  of  man,  who  was  made  in  his  image ;  and 
to  show  the  relation  which  also  exists  between  the  doctrine  of  the  ma- 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  353 

terialism  of  the  human  soul,  and  absolute  Atheism,  and  thus  to  hold  out 
a  warning  against  such  speculations.  There  is  no  middle  course  in  fact, 
though  one  may  be  effected.  If  we  materialize  man,  we  must  ma. 
terialize  God,  or,  in  other  words,  deny  a  First  Cause,  one  of  whose 
essential  attributes  is  intelligence.  It  is  then  of  little  consequence  what 
scheme  of  Atheism  is  adopted.  On  the  other  hand,  if  we  allow  spiritu- 
ality to  God,  it  follows  as  a  necessary  corollary,  that  we  must  allow  it 
to  man.     These  doctrines  stand  or  fall  together. 

On  a  subject  which  arises  out  of  the  foregoing  discussion,  a  single 
observation  will  be  sufficient.  It  is  granted  that,  on  the  premises  laid 
down,  not  only  must  an  immaterial  principle  be  allowed  to  man,  but  to. 
all  animals  possessed  of  volition ;  and  few,  perhaps  none,  are  found 
without  this  property.  But  though  this  has  often  been  urged  as  an  oh-~ 
jection,  it  can  cost  the  believer  in  revelation  nothing  to  admit  it.  It 
strengthens,  and  does  not  weaken  his  argument ;  and  it  is  perfectly  in , 
accordance  with  Scripture,  which  speaks  of  "  the  soul  of  a  beast,!'  as 
well  as  of  "the  soul  of  man."  Vastly,  nay,  we  might  say,  infinitely, 
different  are  they  in  the  class  and  degree  of  their  powers,  though  of  the 
same  spiritual  essence ;  but  they  have  both  properties  which  cannot  be 
attributed  to  matter.  It  does  not,  however,  follow  that  they  are  immortalt 
because  they  are  immaterial.  The  truth  is,  that  God  only  hath  inde- 
pendent immortality,  because  he  only  is  self  existent,  and  neill^Jiujaaaa 
nor_brute  souls  are  of  necessity  immortal  J  God  hath  given  this  privilege 
to  man,  not  by  a  necessity  of  nature,  which  would  be  incompatible  with 
dependence,  but  by  his  own  will,  and  the  continuance  of  his  sustaining 
power.  But  he  seems  to  have  denied  it  to  the  inferior  animals,  and  ac- 
cording to  the  language  of  Scripture,  "  the  spirit  of  a  beast  goeth  down- 
ward." The  doctrine  of  the  natural  immortality  of  man,  will,  however, 
be  considered  in  its  proper  place. 


CHAPTER  III. 

Attributes  of  God — Eternity — Omnipotence — Ubiquity. 

From  the  Scriptures  we  have  learned,  that  there  is  one  God,  the 
Creator  of  all  things,  and  consequently  living  and  intelligent.  The 
demonstrations  of  this  truth,  which  surround  us  in  the  works  of  nature, 
have  been  also  adverted  to.  By  the  same  sacred  revelations  we  have 
also  been  taught,  that,  as  to  the  Divine  essence,  God  is  a  Spirit ;  and  in 
the  farther  manifestations  they  have  made  of  him,  we  learn,  that  as  all 
things  were  made  by  him,  he  was  before  all  things :  that  their  being  is 
dependen',  his  independent ;  that  he  is  eminently  Being,  according  to 
his  own  peculiar  appellation  "I  am;"  self  existent,  and  Etjerxal.  In 
the  Scripture  doctrine  of  God,  we,  however,  not  only  find  it  asserted 

Vol.  I.  23 


354  THEOLOGICAL   INSTITUTES.  [PART 

that  God  had  no  beginning,  but  that  he  shall  have  no  end.  Eternity 
ad  partem  post  is  ascribed  to  him,  for  in  the  most  absolute  sense,  he 
hath  "  immortality,"  and  he  "  only"  hath  it,  by  virtue  of  the  inherent 
perfection  of  his  nature.  It  is  this  which  completes  those  sublime  and 
impressive  views  of  the  eternity  of  God,  with  which  the  revelation  he 
has  been  pleased  to  make  of  himself  abounds.  "  From  everlasting  to 
everlasting  thou  art  God.  Of  old  hast  thou  laid  the  foundation  of  the 
earth  ;  and  the  heavens  are  the  work  of  thine  hand.  They  shall  perish, 
but  thou  shalt  endure ;  yea,  all  of  them  shall  wax  old  like  a  garment ; 
as  a  vesture  shalt  thou  change  them,  and  they  shall  be  changed ;  but 
thou  art  the  same,  and  thy  years  shall  have  no  end."  He  "  inhabiteth 
eternity,"  fills  and  occupies  the  whole  round  of  boundless  duration,  and 
"  is  the  first  and  the  last." 

In  these  representations  of  the  eternal  existence  and  absolute  immor- 
tality of  the  Divine  Being,  something  more  than  the  mere  idea  of  infinite 
duration  is  conveyed.  No  creature  can,  without  contradiction,  be  sup- 
posed to  have  been  from  eternity ;  but  even  a  creature  may  be  supposed 
to  continue  to  exist  for  ever,  in  as  strict  a  sense  as  God  himself  will 
continue  to  exist  for  ever.Ults  existence,  however,  being  originally  de- 
pendent and  derived,  must  continue  so.  (  It  is  not,  so  to  speak,  in  its 
nature  to  live,  or  it  would  never  have  beefi  non-existent ;  and  what  it 
has  not  from  itself, it  has  received,  andmust  through  eveiy  moment  of 
actual  existence  receive  from  its  Maker. )  But  the  very  phrase  in  which 
the  Scriptures  speak  of  the  eternity  ofGod,  suggests  a  meaning  deeper 
than  that  of  mere  duration.  They  contrast  the  stability  of  the  Divine 
existence  with  the  vanishing  and  changing  nature  of  all  his  works,  and 
represent  them  as  reposing  upon  him  for  support,  while  he  not  only  de- 
pends not  upon  any,.but  rests  upon  himself.  He  lives  by  virtue  of  his 
nature,  and  is  essentially  unchangeable.  For  to  the  nature  of  that  which 
exists  without  cause,  life  must  be  essential.  In  him  who  is  "  the  fountain 
of  life,"  there  can  be  no  principle  of  decay.  There  can  be  no  desire 
to  cease  to  be,  in  him  who  is  perfectly  blessed,  because  of  the  unbounded 
excellence  of  his  nature.  To  him  existence  must  be  the  source  of 
infinite  enjoyment,  both  from  the  contemplation  of  his  own  designs,  and 
the  manifestation  of  his  glory,  purity,  and  benevolence,  to  the  intelligent 
creatures  he  has  made  to  know  and  to  be  beatified  by  such  discoveries 
and  benefits.  No  external  power  can  control,  or  in  any  way  affect  his 
felicity,  his  perfection  or  his  being.  Such  are  the  depths  of  glory  and 
peculiarity  into  which  the  Divine  eternity,  as  stated  in  the  Scriptures, 
leads  the  wondering  mind  ;  and  of  which  the  wisest  of  heathens,  who 
ascribed  immortality  to  one,  or  to  many  gods,  had  no  conception.  They 
were  ever  fancying  something  out  of  God,  as  the  cause  of  their  immortal 
being  ;  fate,  or  external  necessity,  or  some  similar  and  vague  notion, 
which  obscured,  as  to  them,  one  of  the  peculiar  glories  of  the  "  eternal 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL     INSTITUTES.  355 

power  and  Godhead,"  who  of  and  from  his  own  essential  nature,  is,  and 
was,  and  shall  be. 

Some  apprehensions  of  this  great  truth  are  seen  in  the  sayings  of  a 
few  of  the  Greek  sages,  though  much  obscured  by  their  other  notions. 
Indeed,  that  appropriate  name  of  God,  so  venerated  among  the  Jews, 
the  ttomen  tetragrammaton,  which  we  render  Jehovah,  was  known 
among  the  heathens  to  be  the  name  under  which  the  Jews  worshipped 
the  supreme  God ;  and  "  from  this  Divine  name,"  says  Parkhurst,  sub 
voce,  "  the  ancient  Greeks  had  their  \v\  \r\  in  their  invocation  of  the 
gods.  (7)  It  expresses  not  the  attributes,  but  the  essence  of  God,  which 
was  the  reason  why  the  Jews  deemed  it  ineffable.     The  Septuagint 

(7)  A  curious  instance  of  the  transmission  of  this  name,  and  one  of  the  pecu- 
liarities of  the  Hebrew  faith,  even  into  China,  is  mentioned  in  the  following 
extract  of  "  A  Memoir  of  Lao-tseu,  a  Chinese  philosopher,  who  flourished  in  the 
sixth  century  before  our  era,  and  who  professed  the  opinions  ascribed  to  Plato 
and  to  Pythagoras."  (By  M.  Abel  Remusat.) — "  The  metaphysics  of  Lao-tseu 
have  many  other  remarkable  features,  which  I  have  endeavoured  to  develope  in 
my  memoir,  and  which,  for  various  reasons,  I  am  obliged  to  pass  over  in  silence. 
How,  in  fact,  should  I  give  an  idea  of  those  lofty  abstractions,  of  those  inextri- 
cable subtleties,  in  which  the  oriental  imagination  disports  and  goes  astray  ?  It 
will  suffice  to  say  here,  that  the  opinions  of  the  Chinese  philosopher  on  the 
origin  and  constitution  of  the  universe,  have  neither  ridiculous  fables  nor 
offensive  absurdities ;  that  they  bear  the  stamp  of  a  noble  and  elevated  mind  ;  and 
that,  i«  the  sublime  reveries  which  distinguish  them,  they  exhibit  a  striking  and 
incontestable  conformity  with  the  doctrine  which  was  professed  a  little  later  by 
the  schools  of  Pythagoras  and  Plato.  Like  the  Pythagoreans  and  the  Stoics, 
our  author  admits,  as  the  First  Cause,  Reason,  an  ineffable,  uncreated  Being, 
that  is  the  type  of  the  universe,  and  has  no  type  but  itself.  Like  Pythagoras,  he 
takes  human  souls  to  be  emanations  of  the  ethereal  substance,  which  are  re- 
united with  it  after  death ;  and,  like  Plato,  he  refuses  to  the  wicked  the  faculty 
of  returning  into  the  bosom  of  the  Universal  Soul.  Like  Pythagoras,  he  gives 
to  the  first  principles  of  things  the  names  of  numbers,  and  his  cosmogony  is,  in 
some  degree,  algebraical.  He  attaches  the  chain  of  beings  to  that  which  he 
calls  One,  then  to  Two,  then  to  Three,  which  have  made  all  things.  The 
divine  Plato,  who  had  adopted  this  mysterious  dogma,  seems  to  be  afraid  of  re- 
vealing it  to  the  profane.  He  envelopes  it  in  clouds  in  his  famous  letter  to  the 
three  friends  ;  he  teaches  it  to  Dionysius  of  Syracuse  ;  but  by  enigmas,  as  he  says 
himself,  lest  his  tablets  falling  into  the  hands  of  some  stranger  they  should  be 
read  and  understood.  Perhaps  the  recollection  of  the  recent  death  of  Socrates 
imposed  this  reserve  upon  him.  Lao-tseu  does  not  make  use  of  these  indirect 
ways ;  and  what  is  most  clear  in  his  book  is,  that  a  Triune  Being  formed  the 
universe.  To  complete  the  singularity,  he  gives  to  his  being  a  Hebrew  name 
hardly  changed,  the  very  name  which  in  our  book  designates  him,  who  was, 
and  is,  and  shall  be.  This  last  circumstance  confirms  all  that  the  tradition 
indicated  of  a  journey  to  the  west,  and  leaves  no  doubt  of  the  origin  of  his 
doctrine.  Probably  he  received  it  either  from  the  Jews  of  the  ten  tribes,  whom 
the  conquest  of  Sulmanazan  had  just  dispersed  throughout  Asia,  or  from  the 
apostles  of  some  Phenician  sect,  to  which  those  philosophers  also  belonged,  who 
were  the  masters  and  precursors  of  Pythagoras  and  Plato." 


356  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

translators  preserved  the  same  idea  in  the  word  Kvpiog,  by  which  they 
translated  it,  from  xupw,  sum,  I  am.  This  word  is  said  by  critics  not  to 
be  classically  used  to  signify  God,  which  would  mark  the  peculiarity  of 
this  appellation  in  the  Septuagint  version  more  strongly,  and  convey 
something  of  the  great  idea  of  the  self,  or  absolute  existence  ascribed  to 
the  Divine  nature  in  the  Hebrew  Scriptures,  to  those  of  the  heathen 
philosophers  who  met  with  that  translation.  That  it  could  not  be 
passed  over  unnoticed,  we  may  gather  from  St.  Hilary,  who  says,  that 
before  his  conversion  to  Christianity,  meeting  with  this  appellation  of 
God  in  the  Pentateuch,  he  was  struck  with  admiration,  nothing  being  so 
proper  to  God  as  to  be.  Among  the  Jews,  however,  the  import  of  this 
stupendous  name  was  preserved  unimpaired  by  metaphysical  specula- 
tions. It  was  registered  in  their  sacred  books :  from  the  fulness  of  its 
meaning  the  loftiest  thoughts  are  seen  to  spring  up  in  the  minds  of  the 
prophets,  which  amplify  with  an  awful  and  mysterious  grandeur  their 
descriptions  of  his  peculiar  glories,  in  contrast  with  the  vain  gods  of  the 
heathen,  and  with  every  actual  existence,  however  exalted,  in  heaven 
and  in  earth. 

On  this  subject  of  the  eternal  duration  of  the  Divine  Being,  many 
have  held  a  metaphysical  refinement.  "  The  eternal  existence  of  God," 
it  is  said,  "  is  not  to  be  considered  as  successive ;  the  ideas  we  gain 
from  time  are  not  to  be  allowed  in  our  conceptions  of  his  duration.  As 
he  fills  all  space  with  his  immensity,  he  fills  all  duration  with  his  eter- 
nity ;  and  with  him  eternity  is  nunc  stans,  a  permanent  now,  incapable 
of  the  relations  of  past,  present,  and  future."  Such,  certainly,  is  not 
the  view  given  us  of  this  mysterious  subject  in  the  Scriptures ;  and  if  it 
should  be  said  that  they  speak  popularly,  and  are  accommodated  to  the 
infirmity  of  the  thoughts  of  the  body  of  mankind,  we  may  reply,  that 
philosophy  has  not,  with  all  its  boasting  of  superior  light,  carried  our 
views  on  this  attribute  of  the  Divine  nature  at  all  beyond  the  revelation ; 
and,  in  attempting  it,  has  only  obscured  the  conceptions  of  its  disciples. 
"  Filling  duration  with  his  eternity"  is  a  phrase  without  any  meaning : 
"  For  how  can  any  man  conceive  a  permanent  instant,  which  co-exists 
with  a  perpetually  flowing  duration  ?  One  might  as  well  apprehend  a 
mathematical  point  co-extended  with  a  line,  a  surface,  and  all  dimen- 
sions." (Abernethy's  Sermons.)  As  this  notion  has,  however,  been 
made  the  basis  of  some  opinions,  which  will  be  remarked  upon  in  their 
proper  place,  it  may  be  proper  briefly  to  examine  it. 

Whether  we  get  our  idea  of  time  from  the  motion  of  bodies  without 
us,  or  from  the  consciousness  of  the  succession  of  our  own  ideas,  01 
both,  is  not  important  to  this  inquiry.  Time,  in  our  conceptions,  is 
divisible.  The  artificial  divisions  are  years,  months,  days,  minutes, 
seconds,  &c.  We  can  conceive  of  yet  smaller  portions  of  duration, 
and  whether  we  have  given  to  them  artificial  names  or  not,  we  can 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  357 

conceive  no  otherwise  of  duration,  than  continuance  of  being,  estimated 
as  to  degree,  by  this  artificial  admeasurement,  and  therefore  as  substan- 
tially answering  to  it.  It  is  not  denied  but  that  duration  is  something 
distinct  from  these  its  artificial  measures  ;  yet  of  this  every  man's  con- 
sciousness  will  assure  him,  that  we  can  form  no  idea  of  duration  except 
in  this  successive  manner.  But  we  are  told,  that  the  eternity  of  God  is 
a  fixed  eternal  now,  from  which  all  ideas  of  succession,  of  past  and  fu- 
ture, are  to  be  excluded  ;  and  we  are  called  upon  to  conceive  of  eternal 
duration  without  reference  to  past  or  future,  and  to  the  exclusion  of  the 
idea  of  that  flow  under  which  we  conceive  of  time.  The  proper  abstract 
idea  of  duration  is,  however,  simple  continuance  of  being,  without  any 
reference  to  the  exact  degree  or  extent  of  it,  because  in  no  other  way 
can  it  be  equally  applicable  to  all  the  substances  of  which  it  is  the  attri- 
bute. It  may  be  finite  or  infinite,  momentary  or  eternal,  but  that  de- 
pends upon  the  substance  of  which  it  is  the  quality,  and  not  upon  its 
own  nature.  Our  own  observation  and  experience  teach  us  how  to 
apply  it  to  ourselves.  As  to  us,  duration  is  dependent  and  finite  ;  as 
to  God,  it  is  infinite ;  but  in  both  cases  the  originality  or  dependence, 
the  finity  or  infinity  of  it,  arises  not  out  of  the  nature  of  duration  itself, 
but  out  of  other  qualities  of  the  subjects  respectively. 

Duration,  then,  as  applied  to  God,  is  no  more  than  an  extension  of  the 
idea  as  applied  to  ourselves ;  and  to  exhort  us  to  conceive  of  it  as 
something  essentially  different,  is  to  require  us  to  conceive  what  is  in- 
conceivable. It  is  to  demand  of  us  to  think  without  ideas.  Duration 
is  continuance  of  existence,  continuance  of  existence  is  capable  of  being 
longer  or  shorter,  and  hence  necessarily  arises  the  idea  of  the  succes- 
sion of  the  minutest  points  of  duration  into  which  we  can  conceive  it 
divided.  Beyond  this  the  mind  cannot  go,  it  forms  the  idea  of  duration 
no  other  way ;  and  if  what  we  call  duration  be  any  thing  different  from 
this  in  God,  it  is  not  duration,  properly  so  called,  according  to  human 
ideas ;  it  is  something  else,  for  which  there  is  no  name  among  men,  be- 
cause there  is  no  idea,  and  therefore  it  is  impossible  to  reason  about  it. 
As  long  as  metaphysicians  use  the  term,  they  must  take  the  idea :  if 
they  spurn  the  idea,  they  have  no  right  to  the  term,  and  ought  at  once 
to  confess  that  they  can  go  no  farther.  Dr.  Cudworth  defines  infinity 
of  duration  to  be  nothing  else  but  perfection,  as  including  in  it  necessary 
existence  and  immutability.  This,  it  is  true,  is  as  much  a  definition  of 
the  moon,  as  of  infinity  of  duration ;  but  it  is  valuable,  as  it  shows 
that,  in  the  view  of  this  great  man,  though  an  advocate  of  the  nunc 
stans,  the  standing  now  of  eternity,  we  must  abandon  the  term  duration, 
if  we  give  up  the  only  idea  under  which  it  can  be  conceived. 

It  follows  from  this,  therefore,  that  either  we  must  apply  the  term 
duration  to  the  Divine  Being  in  the  same  sense  in  which  we  apply  it  to 
creatures,  with  the  extension  of  the  icea  to  a  duration  which  has  no 


358  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

bounds  and  limits,  or  blot  it  out  of  our  creeds,  as  a  word  to  which  our 
minds,  with  all  the  aid  they  may  derive  from  the  labours  of  metaphysi- 
cians, can  attach  no  meaning.  The  only  notion  which  has  the  appear- 
ance of  an  objection  to  this  successive  duration,  as  applied  to  him, 
appears  wholly  to  arise  from  confounding  two  very  distinct  things  ;  suc- 
cession in  the  duration,  and  change  in  the  substance.  Dr.  Cudworth 
appears  to  have  fallen  into  this  error.  He  speaks  of  the  duration  of  an 
imperfect  nature,  as  sliding  from  the  present  to  the  future,  expecting 
.something  of  itself  which  is  not  yet  in  being,  and  of  a  perfect  nature 
being  essentially  immutable,  having  a  permanent  and  unchanging  dura- 
tion, never  losing  any  thing  of  itself  once  present,  nor  yet  running 
forward  to  meet  something  of  itself  which  is  not  yet  in  being.  Now, 
though  this  is  a  good  description  of  a  perfect  and  immutable  nature,  it 
is  no  description  at  all  of  an  eternally-enduring  nature.  Duration  im- 
plies no  loss  in  the  substance  of  any  being,  nor  addition  to  it.  A  perfect 
nature  never  loses  any  thing  of  itself,  nor  expects  more  of  itself  than  is 
possessed ;  but  this  does  not  arise  from  the  attribute  of  its  duration, 
however  that  attribute  may  be  conceived  of,  but  from  its  perfection,  and 
consequent  immutability.  These  attributes  do  not  flow  from  the  dura- 
tion, but  the  extent  of  the  duration  from  them.  The  argument  is  clearly 
good  for  nothing,  unless  it  could  be  proved,  that  successive  duration 
necessarily  implies  change  in  the  nature ;  but  that  is  contradicted  by 
the  experience  of  finite  beings — their  natures  are  not  at  all  determined 
by  their  duration,  but  their  duration  by  their  natures  ;  and  they  exist  for 
a  moment,  or  for  ages,  according  to  the  nature  which  their  Maker  has 
impressed  upon  them.  If  it  be  said  that,  at  least,  successive  duration 
imports  that  a  being  loses  past  duration,  and  expects  the  arrival  of  future 
existence,  we  reply,  that  this  is  no  imperfection  at  all.  Even  finite 
creatures  do  not  feel  it  to  be  an  imperfection  to  have  existed,  and  to  look 
for  continued  and  interminable  being.  It  is  true,  with  the  past,  we  lose 
knowledge  and  pleasure ;  and  expecting  in  all  future  periods  increase 
of  knowledge  and  happiness,  we  are  reminded  by  that  of  our  present 
imperfection  ;  but  this  imperfection  does  not  arise  from  our  successive 
and  flowing  duration,  and  we  never  refer  it  to  that.  It  is  not  the  past 
which  takes  away  our  knowledge  and  pleasure ;  nor  future  duration, 
simply  considered,  which  will  confer  the  increase  of  both.  Our  imper- 
fections arise  out  of  the  essential  nature  of  our  being,  not  out  of  the 
manner  in  which  our  being  is  continued.  It  is  not  the  flow  of  our 
duration,  but  the  flow  of  our  natures  which  produces  these  effects.  On 
the  contrary,  we  think  that  the  idea  of  our  successive  duration,  that  is, 
of  continuance,  is  an  excellency,  and  not  a  defect.  Let  all  ideas  of 
continuance  be  banished  from  the  mind,  let  these  be  to  us  a  nunc  semper 
slans,  during  the  whole  of  our  being,  and  we  appear  to  gain  nothing — 
our  pleasures  surely  are  not  diminished  by  the  idea  of  long  continuance 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES.  359 

Deing  added  to  present  enjoyment ;  that  they  have  been,  and  still  re- 
main, and  will  continue,  on  the  contrary,  greatly  heightens  them.  With- 
out the  idea  of  a  flowing  duration,  we  could  have  no  such  measure  of 
the  continuance  of  our  pleasures,  and  this  we  should  consider  an  abate- 
ment, of  o-ir  happiness.  What  is  so  obvious  an  excellency  in  the  spirit 
ol  man,  and  in  angelic  natures,  can  never  be  thought  an  imperfection  in 
God,  when  joined  with  a  nature  essentially  perfect  and  immutable. 

But  it  may  be  said,  that  eternal  duration,  considered  as  successive,  is 
only  an  artificial  manner  of  measuring,  and  conceiving  of  duration ; 
and  is  no  more  eternal  duration  itself  than  minutes  and  moments,  the 
artificial  measures  of  time,  are  time  itself.  Were  this  granted,  the 
question  would  still  be,  whether  there  is  any  thing  in  duration,  consi 
dered  generally,  or  in  time  considered  specially,  which  corresponds  to 
thjse  artificial  methods  of  measuring,  and  conceiving  of  them.  The 
ocean  is  measured  by  leagues ;  but  the  extension  of  the  ocean,  and  the 
measure  of  it,  are  distinct.  They,  nevertheless,  answer  to  each  other. 
Leagues  are  the  nominal  divisions  of  an  extended  surface,  but  there  is  a 
real  extension,  which  answers  to  the  artificial  conception  and  admea- 
surement of  it.  In  like  manner,  days,  and  hours,  and  moments,  are  the 
measures  of  time ;  but  there  is  either  something  in  time  which  answers 
to  these  measures,  or  not  only  the  measure,  but  the  thing  itself  is  arti- 
ficial— an  imaginary  creation.  If  any  man  will  contend,  that  the  period 
of  duration  which  we  call  time,  is  nothing,  no  farther  dispute  can  be 
held  with  him,  and  he  may  be  left  to  deny  also  the  existence  of  matter, 
and  to  enjoy  his  philosophic  revel  in  an  ideal  world.  We  apply  the 
same  argument  to  duration  generally,  whether  finite  or  infinite.  Mi- 
nutes and  moments,  or  smaller  portions,  for  which  we  have  no  name, 
may  be  artificial,  adopted  to  aid  our  conceptions ;  but  conceptions  of 
what  ?  Not  of  any  thing  standing  still,  but  of  something  going  on.  Of 
duration  we  have  no  other  conception  ;  and  if  there  be  nothing  in  nature 
which  answers  to  this  conception,  then  is  duration  itself  imaginary,  and 
we  discourse  about  nothing.  If  the  duration  of  the  Divine  Being  admits 
not  of  past,  present,  and  future,  one  of  these  two  consequences  must 
follow, — that  no  such  attribute  as  that  of  eternity  belongs  to  him, — or 
that  there  is  no  power  in  the  human  mind  to  conceive  of  it.  In  either 
case  the  Scriptures  are  greatly  impugned ;  for  "  He  who  was,  and  is, 
and  is  to  come,"  is  a  revelation  of  the  eternity  of  God,  which  is  then  in 
no  sense  true.  It  is  not  true  if  used  literally  ;  and  it  is  as  little  so  if 
the  language  be  figurative,  for  the  figure  rests  on  no  basis,  it  illustrates 
nothing,  it  misleads. 

God  is  omnipotent:  Of  this  attribute  also  we  have  the  most  ample 
revelation,  and  in  the  most  impressive  and  sublime  language.  From 
the  annunciation  in  the  Scriptures  of  a  Divine  existence  who  was  "  in  the 
beginning"  before  all  things,  the  very  first  steD  is  the  display  of  his  al- 


360  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

mighty  power  in  the  creation  out  of  nothing,  and  the  immediate  arrange- 
ment  in  order  and  perfection,  of  the  "  heaven  and  the  earth  ;"  by  which 
is  meant  not  this  globe  only  with  its  atmosphere,  or  even  with  its  own 
celestial  system,  but  the  universe  itself;  for  "  he  made  the  stars  also." 
We  are  thus  placed  at  once  in  the  presence  of  an  agent  of  unbounded 
power,  "  the  strict  and  correct  conclusion  being,  that  a  power  which 
could  create  such  a  world  as  this,  must  be  beyond  all  comparison, 
greater  than  any  which  we  experience  in  ourselves,  than  any  which 
we  observe  in  other  visible  agents,  greater  also  than  any  which  we  can 
want  for  our  individual  protection  and  preservation,  in  the  Being  upon 
whom  we  depend ;  a  power  likewise  to  which  we  are  not  authorized  by 
our  observation  or  knowledge  to  assign  any  limits  of  space  or  duration." 
(Paley.) 

That  the  sacred  writers  should  so  frequently  dwell  upon  the  omnipo- 
tence of  God,  has  an  important  reason  which  arises  out  of  the  very 
design  of  that  l-evelation  which  they  were  the  instruments  of  communi- 
cating to  mankind.  Men  were  to  be  reminded  of  their  obligations  to 
obedience,  and  God  is  therefore  constantly  exhibited  as  the  Creator,  the 
Preserver,  and  Lord  of  all  things.  His  reverent  worship  and  fear  was 
to  be  enjoined  upon  them,  and  by  the  manifestation  of  his  works  the  veil 
was  withdrawn  from  his  glory  and  majesty.  Idolatry  was  to  be  checked 
and  reproved,  and  the  true  God  was  thus  placed  in  contrast  with  the 
limited  and  powerless  gods  of  the  heathen.  "  Among  the  gods  of  the 
nations,  is  there  no  god  like  unto  thee,  neither  are  there  any  works  like 
thy  works."  Finally,  he  was  to  be  exhibited  as  the  object  of  trust  to 
creatures,  constantly  reminded  by  experience  of  their  own  infirmity  and 
dependence,  and  to  whom  it  was  essential  to  know,  that  his  power  was 
absolute,  unlimited,  and  irresistible. 

In  the  revelation  which  was  thus  designed  to  awe  and  control  the 
bad,  and  to  afford  strength  of  mind  and  consolation  to  the  good  under 
all  circumstances,  the  omnipotence  of  God  is  therefore  placed  in  a  great 
variety  of  impressive  views,  and  connected  with  the  most  striking 
illustrations. 

It  is  presented  by  the  fact  of  creation,  the  creation  of  beings  out  of 
nothing,  which  itself,  though  it  had  been  confined  to  a  single  object, 
however  minute,  exceeds  finite  comprehension,  and  overwhelms  the 
faculties.  This  with  God  required  no  effort — "  He  spake  and  it  was 
done,  he  commanded  and  it  stood  fast."  The  vastness  and  variety  of 
his  WDrks  enlarge  the  conception.  "  The  heavens  declare  the  glory  of 
God,  and  the  firmament  showeth  his  handy  work."  "  He  spreadeth 
out  the  heavens,  and  treadeth  upon  the  waves  of  the  sea ;  he  maketh 
Arcturus,  Orion,  and  Pleiades,  and  the  chambers  of  the  south  ;  he  doeth 
great  things,  past  finding  out,  yea,  and  wonders  without  number.  He 
stretcheth  out  the  north  over  the  empty  place,  and  hangeth  the  earth 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  361 

upon  nothing.  He  bindeth  up  the  waters  in  the  thick  clouds,  and  the 
cloud  is  not  rent  under  them ;  he  hath  compassed  the  waters  with 
bounds  until  the  day  and  night  come  to  an  end."  The  ease  with  which 
he  sustains,  orders,  and  controls  the  most  powerful  and  unruly  of  the 
elements,  presents  his  omnipotence  under  an  aspect  of  ineffable  dignity 
and  majesty.  "  By  him  all  things  consist."  He  brake  up  for  the  sea 
"  a  decreed  place,  and  set  bars  and  doors,  and  said,  Hitherto  shalt  thou 
come  and  no  farther,  and  here  shall  thy  proud  waves  be  stayed."  "  He 
looketh  to  the  end  of  the  earth,  and  seeth  under  the  whole  heaven,  to 
make  the  weight  for  the  winds,  to  weigh  the  waters  by  measure,  to 
make  a  decree  for  the  rain,  and  a  way  for  the  lightning  of  the  thunder." 
"  Who  hath  measured  the  waters  in  the  hollow  of  his  hand,  meted  out 
heaven  with  a  span,  comprehended  the  dust  of  the  earth  in  a  measure, 
and  weighed  the  mountains  in  scales,  and  the  winds  in  a  balance  ?" 
The  descriptions  of  the  Divine  power  are  often  terrible.  "  The  pillars 
of  heaven  tremble,  and  are  astonished  at  his  reproof;  he  divideth  the 
sea  by  his  power."  "  He  removeth  the  mountains,  and  they  know  it 
not ;  he  overturneth  them  in  his  anger,  he  shaketh  the  earth  out  of  her 
place,  and  the  pillars  thereof  tremble ;  he  commandeth  the  sun  and  it 
riseth  not,  and  sealeth  up  the  stars."  The  same  absolute  subjection  of 
creatures  to  his  donunion  is  seen  among  the  intelligent  inhabitants  of  the 
material  universe,  and  angels,  men  the  most  exalted,  and  evil  spirits, 
are  swayed  with  as  much  ease  as  the  least  resistless  elements.  "  He 
maketh  his  angels  spirits,  and  his  ministers  a  flame  of  fire."  They  veil 
their  faces  before  his  throne,  and  acknowledge  themselves  his  servants. 
"  It  is  he  that  sitteth  upon  the  circle  of  the  earth,  and  the  inhabitants 
thereof  are  as  grasshoppers,"  "as  the  dust  of  the  balance,  less  than 
nothing  and  vanity."  "  He  bringeth  princes  to  nothing."  "  He  setteth 
up  one  and  putteth  down  another,"  "  for  the  kingdom  is  the  Lord's,  and 
he  is  governor  among  the  nations."  "The  angels  that  sinned,  he  cast 
down  to  hell,  and  delivered  them  into  chains  of  darkness,  to  be  reserved 
unto  judgment."  The  closing  scenes  of  this  world  complete  these 
transcendent  conceptions  of  the  majesty  and  power  of  God.  The  dead 
of  all  ages  shall  rise  from  their  graves  at  his  voice ;  and  the  sea  shall 
give  up  the  dead  which  are  in  it.  Before  his  face  heaven  and  earth 
flee  away,  the  stars  fall  from  heaven,  and  the  powers  of  heaven  are 
shaken.  The  dead,  small  and  great,  stand  before  God,  and  are  divided 
as  a  shepherd  divideth  his  sheep  from  the  goats ;  the  wicked  go  away 
into  everlasting  punishment,  but  the  righteous  into  life  eternal. 

Of  these  amazing  views  of  the  omnipotence  of  God,  spread  almost 
through  every  page  of  the  Scripture,  the  power  lies  in  their  truth.  They 
are  not  eastern  exaggerations,  mistaken  for  sublimity.  Every  thing  in 
nature  answers  to  them,  and  renews  from  age  to  age  the  energy  of  the 
impression  which  they  cannot  but  make  upon  the  reflecting  mind.     The 


362  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITCTES.  [PART 

order  of  the  astral  revolutions  indicates  the  constant  presence  of  an  invi- 
sible but  incomprehensible  power : — the  seas  hurl  the  weight  of  their 
billows  upon  the  rising  shores,  but  every  where  find  a  "  bound  fixed  by 
a  perpetual  decree ;" — the  tides  reach  their  height ;  if  they  flowed  on 
for  a  few  hours,  the  earth  would  change  places  with  the  bed  of  the  sea ; 
but  under  an  invisible  control  they  become  refluent.  "  He  toucheth  the 
mountains  and  they  smoke,"  is  not  mere  imagery.  Every  volcano  is  a 
testimony  of  that  truth  to  nature  which  we  find  in  the  Scriptures  ;  and 
earthquakes  teach,  that  before  him,  "  the  pillars  of  the  world  tremble." 
Men  collected  into  armies,  and  populous  nations,  give  us  vast  ideas  of 
human  power :  but  let  an  army  be  placed  amidst  the  sand  storms  and 
burning  winds  of  the  desert,  as,  in  the  east,  has  frequently  happened* 
or  before  "  his  frost,"  as  in  our  own  day,  in  Russia,  where  one  of  the 
mightiest  armaments  was  seen  retreating  before,,  or  perishing  under  an 
unexpected  visitation  of  snow  and  storm ;  or  let  the  utterly  helpless 
state  of  a  populous  country  which  has  been  visited  by  famine,  or  by  a 
resistless  pestilential  disease,  be  reflected  upon,  and  it  is  no  figure 
of  speech  to  say,  that  "  all  nations  are  before  him  less  than  nothing 
and  vanity." 

Nor  in  reviewing  this  doctrine  of  Scripture,  ought  the  fine  practical 
uses  made  of  the  omnipotence  of  God,  by  the  sacred  writers,  to  be 
overlooked.  In  them  there  is  nothing  said  for  the  display  of  knowledge, 
as,  too  often,  in  heathen  writers  ;  no  speculation  without  a  moral  sub- 
servient to  it,  and  that  by  evident  design.  To  excite  and  keep  alive  in 
man  the  fear  and  worship  of  God,  and  to  bring  him  to  a  felicitous  confi- 
dence in  that  almighty  power  which  pervades  and  controls  all  things, 
we  have  observed,  are  the  reasons  for  those  ample  displays  of  the  omni- 
potence of  God,  which  roll  through  the  sacred  volume  with  a  sublimity 
that  inspiration  only  could  supply.  "Declare  his  glory  among  the 
heathen,  his  marvellous  works  among  all  nations ;  for  great  is  the  Lord 
and  greatly  to  be  praised.  Glory  and  honour  are  in  his  presence,  and 
strength  and  gladness  in  his  place.  Give  unto  the  Lord,  ye  kindreds 
of  the  people,  give  unto  the  Lord  glory  and  strength  ;  give  unto  the 
Lord  the  glory  due  unto  his  name.  The  Lord  is  my  light  and  my  sal- 
vation ;  whom  shall  I  fear  ?  The  Lord  is  the  strength  of  my  life  ;  of 
whom  shall  I  be  afraid  1  If  God  be  for  us,  who  then  can  be  against  us  ? 
Our  help  standeth  in  the  name  of  the  Lord,  who  made  heaven  and 
earth.  What  time  I  am  afraid,  I  will  trust  in  thee."  Thus,  as  one 
observes,  "  our  natural  fears,  of  which  we  must  have  many,  remit  us  to 
God,  and  remind  us,  since  we  know  what  God  is,  to  lay  hold  on  his 
almighty  power." 

Ample  however  as  are  the  views  afforded  us  in  Scripture  of  the 
power  of  God,  we  are  not  to  consider  the  subject  as  bounded  by  them. 
As  when  the  Scriptures  declare  the  eternity  of  God,  they  declare  it  so 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL     INSTITUTES.  3G3 

as  to  unveil  to  us  something  of  that  fearful  peculiarity  of  the  Divine 
nature,  that  he  is  the  fountain  of  being  to  himself,  and  that  he  is  eternal, 
because  he  is  the  "  I  am  ;"  so  we  are  taught  not  to  measure  his  omnipo- 
tence by  the  actual  displays  of  it  which  have  been  made.  They  are  the 
manifestations  of  the  principle,  but  not  the  measure  of  its  capacity ; 
and  should  we  resort  to  the  discoveries  of  modern  philosophy,  which,  by 
the  help  of  instruments,  has  so  greatly  enlarged  the  known  boundaries 
of  the  visible  universe,  and  add  to  the  stars,  visible  to  the  naked  eye, 
new  exhibitions  of  the  Divine  power  in  those  nebulous  appearances  of 
the  heavens  which  are  resolvable  into  myriads  of  distinct  celestial  lumi- 
naries, whose  immense  distances  commingle  their  light  before  it  reaches 
our  eyes ;  we  thus  almost  infinitely  expand  the  circle  of  created  exist- 
ence, and  enter  upon  a  formerly  unknown  and  overwhelming  range  of 
Divine  operation ;  but  we  are  still  reminded,  that  his  power  is  truly 
almighty  and  measureless — "  Lo,  all  these  are  parts  of  his  ways,  but 
how  little  a  portion  is  known  of  him,  and  the  thunder  of  his  power  who 
can  understand  ?"  It  is  a  mighty  conception  to  think  of  a  power  from 
which  all  other  power  is  derived,  and  to  which  it  is  subordinate ;  which 
nothing  can  oppose ;  which  can  beat  down  and  annihilate  all  other 
powers  whatever ;  a  power  which  operates  in  the  most  perfect  manner  ; 
at  once,  in  an  instant,  with  the  utmost  ease :  but  the  Scriptures  lead  us 
to  the  contemplation  of  greater  depths,  and  those  unfathomable.  The 
omnipotence  of  God  is  inconceivable  and  boundless.  It  arises  from  the 
infinite  perfection  of  God,  that  his  power  can  never  be  actually  exhausted ; 
and  in  every  imaginable  instant  in  eternity,  that  inexhaustible  power  of 
God  can,  if  it  please  him,  be  adding  either  more  creatures  to  those 
in  existence,  or  greater  perfection  to  them  ;  since  "  it  belongs  to  self- 
existent  being,  to  be  always  full  and  communicative,  and  to  the  com- 
municated, contingent  being,  to  be  ever  empty  and  craving."  (Howe.) 

One  limitation  only  we  can  conceive,  which  however  detracts  nothing 
from  this  perfection  of  the  Divine  nature. 

•  Where  things  in  themselves  imply  a  contradiction,  as  that  a  body 
may  be  extended  and  not  extended,  in  a  place  and  not  in  a  place,  at 
the  same  time  ;  such  things,  I  say,  cannot  be  done  by  God,  because 
contradictions  arc  impossible  in  their  own  nature  :  nor  is  it  any  deroga- 
tion from  the  Divine  power  to  say,  they  cannot  be  done  ;  for  as  the 
object  of  the  understanding,  of  the  eye,  and  the  ear,  is  that  which  is 
intelligible,  visible,  and  audible ;  so  the  object  of  power  must  be  that 
which  is  possible  ;  and  as  it  is  no  prejudice  to  the  most  perfect  under- 
standing, or  sight,  or  hearing,  that  it  does  not  understand  what  is  not 
intelligible,  or  see  what  is  not  visible,  or  hear  what  is  not  audible ;  so 
neither  is  it  any  diminution  to  the  most  perfect  power,  that  it  does  not 
do  what  is  not  possible.  (Bishop  Wilkins.)  In  like  manner,  God  cannot 
do  any  thing  that  is  repugnant  to  his  other  perfections :  he  cannot  lie, 


304  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  fPART 

nor  deceive,  nor  deny  himself;  for  this  would  be  injurious  to  his  truth. 
He  cannot  love  sin,  nor  punish  innocence ;  for  this  would  destroy  his 
holiness  and  goodness :  and  therefore  to  ascribe  a  power  to  him  that  is 
inconsistent  with  the  rectitude  of  his  nature,  is  not  to  magnify,  but 
debase  him ;  for  all  unrighteousness  is  weakness,  a  defection  from  right 
reason,  a  deviation  from  the  perfect  rule  of  action,  and  arises  from  a 
defect  of  goodness  and  power.  In  a  word,  since  all  the  attributes  of 
God  are  essentially  the  same,  a  power  in  him  which  tends  to  destroy 
any  other  attribute  of  the  Divine  nature,  must  be  a  power  destructive  of 
itself.  Well  therefore  may  we  conclude  him  absolutely  omnipotent, 
who,  by  being  able  to  effect  all  things  consistent  with  his  perfections, 
showeth  infinite  ability,  and  by  not  being  able  to  do  any  thing  repug- 
nant to  the  same  perfections,  demonstrates  himself  subject  to  no  infir- 
mity." {Pearson  on  the  Creed.) 

Nothing  certainly  in  the  finest  writings  of  antiquity,  were  all  their 
best  thoughts  collected  as  to  the  majesty  and  power  of  God,  can  bear 
any  comparison  to  the  views  thus  presented  to  us  by  Divine  revelation. 
Were  we  to  forget  for  a  moment,  what  is  the  fact,  that  their  noblest 
notions  stand  connected  with  fancies  and  vain  speculations  which  deprive 
them  of  their  force,  their  thought  never  rises  so  high,  the  current  of  it 
is  broken,  the  round  of  lofty  conception  is  not  completed  ;  and,  uncon- 
nected as  their  views  of  Divine  power  were  with  the  eternal  destiny  of 
man,  and  the  very  reason  of  creation,  we  never  hear  in  them,  as  in  the 
Scriptures,  "the  thunder  of  his  power."  One  of  the  best  specimens 
of  heathen  devotion  is  given  below  in  the  hymn  of  Cleanthes  the  Stoic ; 
and,  though  noble  and  just,  it  sinks  infinitely  in  the  comparison. 

"  Hail,  O  Jupiter,  most  glorious  of  the  immortals,  invoked  under 
many  names,  always  most  powerful,  the  first  ruler  of  nature,  whose  law 
governs  all  things, — hail !  for  to  address  thee  is  permitted  to  all  mor- 
tals.— For  our  race  we  have  from  thee  ;  we  mortals  who  creep  upon 
the  ground,  receiving,  only  the  echo  of  thy  voice.  I  therefore,  I  will 
celebrate  thee,  and  will  always  sing  thy  power.  All  this  universe  rolling 
round  the  earth,  obeys  thee  wherever  thou  guidest,  and  willingly  is 
governed  by  thee.  So  vehement,  so  fiery,  so  immortal  is  the  thunder 
which  thou  holdest  subservient  in  thy  unshaken  hands  ;  for,  by  the  stroke 
of  this,  all  nature  was  rooted  ;  by  this,  thou  directest  the  common  rea- 
son which  pervades  all  things,  mixed  with  the  greater  and  lesser  lumi- 
naries ;  so  great  a  king  art  thou,  supreme  through  all ;  nor  does  any 
work  take  place  without  thee  on  the  earth,  nor  in  the  ethereal  sky,  nor 
in  the  sea,  except  what  the  bad  perform  in  their  own  folly.  But  do 
thou,  O  Jupiter,  giver  of  all  blessings,  dwelling  in  the  clouds,  ruler  of 
the  thunder,  defend  mortals  from  dismal  misfortune ;  which  dispel,  O 
Father,  from  the  soul,  and  grant  it  to  attain  that  judgment,  trusting  to 
which  thou  governest  all  things  with  justice ;  that,  being  honoured,  we 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  365 

may  repay  thee  with  honour,  singing  continually  thy  works,  as  becomes 
a  mortal ;  since  there  is  no  greater  meed  to  men  or  gods,  than  always 
to  celebrate  justly  the  universal  law." 

The  Omnipresence  or  Ubiquity  of  God,  is  another  doctrine  of  Scrip- 
ture ;  and  it  is  corroborated  by  facts  obvious  to  all  reflecting  beings, 
though  to  us,  and  perhaps  to  all  finite  minds,  the  mode  is  incomprehensi- 
ble. The  statement  of  this  doctrine  in  the  inspired  records,  like  that 
of  all  the  other  attributes  of  God,  is  made  in  their  own  peculiar  tone 
and  emphasis  of  majesty  and  sublimity.  "  Whither  shall  I  go  from  thy 
Spirit,  or  whither  shall  I  flee  from  thy  presence  1  If  I  ascend  up  to 
heaven,  thou  art  there ;  if  I  make  my  bed  in  hell,  behold  thou  art 
there ;  if  I  take  the  wings  of  the  morning  and  dwell  in  the  uttermost 
parts  of  the  sea,  even  there  shall  thy  hand  lead  ine,  and  thy  right  hand 
shall  hold  me. — Can  any  hide  himself  in  secret  places  that  I  shall  not 
see  him  ?  Do  not  I  fill  heaven  and  earth,  saith  the  Lord  ?  Am  I  a 
God  at  hand,  saith  the  Lord,  and  not  a  God  afar  off? — Thus  saith  the 
Lord,  behold  heaven  is  my  throne,  and  the  earth  is  my  footstool. — Be- 
hold, heaven  and  the  heaven  of  heavens  cannot  contain  thee. — Though 
he  dig  into  hell,  thence  shall  my  hand  take  him ;  though  he  climb  up 
into  heaven,  thence  will  I  bring  him  down ;  and  though  he  hide  himself 
in  the  top  of  Carmel,  I  will  search  and  take  him  out  from  thence. — In 
him  we  five,  and  move,  and  have  our  being. — He  filieth  all  things." 

Some  striking  passages  on  the  ubiquity  of  the  Divine  presence  may 
be  found  in  the  writings  of  some  of  the  Greek  philosophers,  arising  out 
of  this  notion,  that  God  was  the  soul  of  the  world ;  but  their  very  con- 
nection with  this  speculation,  notwithstanding  the  imposing  phrase  occa- 
sionally adopted,  strikingly  marks  the  difference  between  their  most 
exalted  views,  and  those  of  the  Hebrew  prophets  on  this  subject.  "  To 
a  large  proportion  of  those  who  hold  a  distinguished  rank  among  the 
ancient  Theistical  philosophers,  the  idea  of  the  personality  of  the  Deity 
was  in  a  great  measure  unknown.  The  Deity  by  them  was  considered, 
not  so  much  an  intelligent  being  as  an  animating  power,  diffused  through- 
out the  world,  and  was  introduced  into  their  speculative  system  to  ac- 
count for  the  motion  of  that  passive  mass  of  matter,  which  was  supposed 
coeval,  and  indeed  coexistent  with  himself."  (Sumner's  Records  of  the 
Creation.)  These  defective  notions  are  confessed  by  Gibbon,  a  writer 
not  disposed  to  undervalue  their  attainments. 

"  The  philosophers  of  Greece  deduced  their  morals  from  the  nature 
of  man,  rather  than  from  that  of  God.  They  meditated,  however, 
on  the  Divine  nature,  as  a  very  curious  and  important  speculation  ;  and 
in  the  profound  inquiry,  they  displayed  the  strength  and  weakness  of 
the  human  understanding.  Of  the  four  most  considerable  sects,  the 
Stoics  and  the  Platonicians  endeavoured  to  reconcile  the  jarring  interests 
of  reason  and  piety.     They  have  left  us  the  most  sublime  proofs  of  thr 


366  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

existence  and  perfections  of  the  First  Cause ;  but  as  it  was  impossible 
for  them  to  conceive  the  creation  of  matter,  the  workman,  in  the  Stoic 
philosophy,  was  not  sufficiently  distinguished  from  the  work ;  while  on 
the  contrary,  the  spiritual  God  of  Plato  and  his  disciples  resembled  more 
an  idea  than  a  substance."  {Decline  and  Fall,  <Sfc.) 

Similar  errors  have  been  revived  in  the  infidel  philosophy  of  modern 
time,  from  Spinoza  down  to  the  latter  offspring  of  the  German  and 
French  schools.  The  same  remark  applies  also  to  the  oriental  philo- 
sophy, which,  as  before  remarked,  presents  at  this  day  a  perfect  view 
of  the  boasted  wisdom  of  ancient  Greece,  which  was  "brought  to  nought" 
by  "  the  foolishness"  of  apostolic  preaching.  But  in  the  Scriptures  there 
is  nothing  confused  in  the  doctrine  of  the  Divine  ubiquity.  God  is 
every  where,  but  he  is  not  every  thing.  All  things  have  their  being  in 
him,  but  he  is  distinct  from  all  things;  he  fills  the  universe,  but  is 
not  mingled  with  it.  He  is  the  intelligence  which  guides,  and  the  power 
which  sustains,  but  his  personality  is  preserved,  and  he  is  independent 
of  the  works  of  his  hands,  however  vast  and  noble.  So  far  is  his  pre- 
sence  from  being  bounded  by  the  universe  itself,  that,  as  in  the  passage 
above  quoted  from  the  Psalms,  we  are  taught  that  were  it  possible  for  us 
to  wing  our  way  into  the  immeasurable  depths  and  breadths  of  space',  God 
would  there  surround  us,  in  as  absolute  a  sense  as  that  in  which  he  is 
said  to  be  about  our  bed  and  cur  path  in  that  part  of  the  world  where  his 
will  has  placed  us. 

On  this  as  on  all  similar  subjects,  the  Scriptures  use  terms  which  are 
taken  in  their  common  sense  acceptation  among  mankind  ;  and  though 
the  vanity  of  the  human  mind  disposes  many  to  seek  a  philosophy  in 
the  doctrine  thus  announced  deeper  than  that  which  its  popular  terms 
convey,  we  are  bound  to  conclude,  if  we  would  pay  but  a  common  re- 
spect to  an  admitted  revelation,  that  where  no  manifest  figure  of  speech 
occurs,  the  truth  of  the  doctrine  lies  in  the  tenor  of  the  terms  by  which 
it  is  expressed.  Otherwise  there  would  be  no  revelation,  I  do  not  say, 
of  the  modus,  for  that  is  confessedly  incomprehensible  ;  but  of  the  fact. 
In  the  case  before  us,  the  terms  presence,  and  place,  are  used  according 
to  common  notions,  and  must  be  so  taken,  if  the  Scriptures  are  intelligi- 
ble. Metaphysical  refinements  are  not  Scriptural  doctrines,  when  they 
give  to  the  terms  chosen  by  the  Holy  Spirit  an  acceptation  out  of  their 
general  and  proper  use,  and  make  them  the  signs  of  a  perfectly  distinct 
class  of  ideas  ;  if  indeed  all  distinctness  of  idea  is  not  lost  in  the  attempt. 
It  is  therefore  in  the  popular,  and  just  because  Scriptural,  manner,  that 
we  are  to  conceive  of  the  omnipresence  of  God. 

"  If  we  reflect  upon  ourselves  we  may  observe  that  we  fill  but  a  small 
space,  and  that  our  knowledge  or  power  reaches  but  a  little  way.  We 
can  act  at  one  time  in  one  place  only,  and  the  sphere  of  our  influence 
is  narrow  at  largest.     Would  we  be  witnesses  to  what  is  done  at  any 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  367 

distance  from  us,  or  exert  there  our  active  powers,  we  must  remove 
ourselves  thither.  For  this  reason  we  are  necessarily  ignorant  of  a 
thousand  things  which  pass  around  or,  incapable  of  attending  and 
managing  any  great  variety  of  atfaiivs,  or  performing  at  the  same  time 
any  number  of  actions,  for  our  own  good,  or  for  the  benefit  of  others. 

"  Although  we  feel  this  to  be  the  present  condition  of  our  being,  and 
the  limited  state  of  our  intelligent  and  active  powers,  yet  we  can  easily 
conceive,  there  may  exist  beings  more  perfect,  and  whose  presence  may 
extend  far  and  wide.  Any  one  of  whom  present  in,  what  to  us  are, 
various  places,  at  the  same  time,  may  know  at  once  what  is  done  in  all 
these,  and  act  in  all  of  them ;  and  thus  be  able  to  regard  and  direct  a 
variety  of  aifairs  at  the  same  instant.  And  who  farther  being  qualified, 
by  the  purity  and  activity  of  their  nature,  to  pass  from  one  place  to  an- 
other with  great  ease  and  swiftness,  may  thus  fill  a  large  sphere  of 
action,  direct  a  great  variety  of  affairs,  confer  a  great  number  of  bene- 
fits, and  observe  a  multitude  of  actions  at  the  same  time,  or  in  so  swift 
a  succession,  as  to  us  would  appear  but  one  instant.  Thus  perfect  we 
may  easily  believe  the  angels  of  God. 

"  We  can  farther  conceive  this  extent  of  presence,  and  of  ability  for 
knowledge  and  action,  to  admit  of  degrees  of  ascending  perfection  ap- 
proaching to  infinite.  And  when  we  have  thus  raised  our  thoughts  to 
the  idea  of  a  being,  who  is  not  only  present  throughout  a  large  empire, 
but  throughout  our  world  ;  and  not  only  in  every  part  of  our  world,  but 
in  every  part  of  all  the  numberless  suns  and  worlds  which  roll  in  the 
starry  heavens — who  is  not  only  able  to  enliven  and  actuate  the  plants, 
animals,  and  men  who  live  upon  this  globe,  but  countless  varieties  of 
creatures  every  where  in  an  immense  universe — yea,  whose  presence  is 
not  confined  to  the  universe,  immeasurable  as  that  is  by  any  finite  mind, 
but  who  is  present  every  where  in  infinite  space ;  and  who  is  therefore 
able  to  create  still  new  worlds  and  fill  them  with  proper  inhabitants, 
attend,  supply,  and  govern  them  all — -when  we  have  thus  gradually  raised 
and  enlarged  our  conceptions,  we  have  the  best  idea  we  can  form,  of 
the  universal  presence  of  the  great  Jehovah,  who  filleth  heaven  and 
earth.  There  is  no  part  of  the  universe,  no  portion  of  space  uninhabit- 
ed by  God,  none  wherein  this  Being  of  perfect  power,  wisdom,  and  be- 
nevolence is  not  essentially  present.  Could  we  with  the  swiftness  of  a 
sunbeam  dart  ourselves  beyond  the  limits  of  the  creation,  and  for  ages 
continue  our  progress  in  infinite  space,  we  should  still  be  surrounded 
with  the  Divine  presence  ;  nor  ever  be  able  to  reach  that  space  where 
God  is  not. 

"  His  presence  also  penetrates  every  part  of  our  world ;  the  most 
solid  parts  of  the  earth  cannot  exclude  it ;  for  it  pierces  as  easily  the 
centre  of  the  globe,,  as  the  empty  air.  All  creatures  live  and  move, 
and  have  their  being  in  him.     And  the  inmost  recesses  of  the  human 


368  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

heart  car.  no  more  exclude  his  presence,  or  conceal  a  thought  from  his 
knowledge,  than  the  deepest  caverns  of  the  earth."  (Amortfs  Sermons.) 

The  illustrations  and  confirmatory  proofs  of  this  doctrine  which  the 
material  world  furnishes,  are  numerous  and  striking. 

"  It  is  a  most  evident  and  acknowledged  truth  that  a  heing  cannot  act 
where  it  is  not ;  if  therefore  actions  and  'effects,  which  manifest  the 
highest  wisdom,  power,  and  goodness  in  the  author  of  them,  are  conti- 
nually produced  every  where,  the  author  of  these  actions,  or  God,  must 
he  continually  present  with  us,  and  wherever  he  thus  acts.  The  matter 
which  composes  the  world  is  evidently  lifeless  and  thoughtless ;  it  must 
therefore  be  incapable  of  moving  itself,  or  designing  or  producing  any 
effects  which  require  wisdom  or  power.  The  matter  of  our  world,  or 
the  small  parts  which  constitute  the  air,  the  earth,  and  the  waters,  is 
yet  continually  moved,  so  as  to  produce  effects  of  this  kind ;  such  are 
the  innumerable  herbs,  and  trees,  and  fruits  which  adorn  the  earth,  and 
support  the  countless  millions  of  creatures  who  inhabit  it.  There  must 
therefore  be  constantly  present,  all  over  the  earth,  a  most  wise,  mighty, 
and  good  being,  the  author  and  director  of  these  motions. 

"We  cannot,  it  is  true,  see  him  with  our  bodily  eyes,  because  he  is  a 
pure  Spirit ;  yet  this  is  not  any  proof  that  he  is  not  present.  A  judi- 
cious discourse,  a  series  of  kind  actions,  convince  us  of  the  presence  of 
a  friend,  a  person  of  prudence  and  benevolence.  We  cannot  see  the 
present  mind,  the  seat  and  principle  of  these  qualities ;  yet  the  constant 
regular  motion  of  the  tongue,  the  hand,  and  the  whole  body,  (which  are 
the  instruments  of  our  souls,  as  the  material  universe  and  all  the  various 
bodies  in  it  are  the  instruments  of  the  Deity,)  will  not  suffer  us  to  doubt, 
that  there  is  an  intelligent  and  benevolent  principle  within  the  body, 
which  produces  all  these  skilful  motions  and  kind  actions.  The  sun, 
the  air,  the  earth,  and  the  waters,  are  no  more  able  to  move  themselves, 
and  produce  all  that  beautiful  and  useful  variety  of  plants,  and  fruits, 
and  trees,  with  which  our  earth  is  covered,  than  the  body  of  a  man, 
when  the  soul  hath  left  it,  is  able  to  move  itself,  form  an  instrument, 
plough  a  field,  or  build  a  house.  If  the  laying  out  judiciously  and  well 
cultivating  a  small  estate,  sowing  it  with  proper  grain  at  the  best  time 
of  the  year,  watering  it  in  due  season  and  quantities,  and  gathering  in 
the  fruits  when  ripe,  and  laying  them  up  in  the  best  manner — if  all 
these  effects  prove  the  estate  to  have  a  manager,  and  the  manager  pos- 
sessed of  skill  and  strength — certainly  the  enlightening  and  warming 
the  whole  earth  by  the  sun,  and  so  directing  its  motion  and  the  motion 
of  the  earth  as  to  produce  in  a  constant  useful  succession  day  and  night, 
summer  and  winter,  seed  time  and  harvest ;  the  watering  the  earth 
continually  by  the  clouds,  and  thus  bringing  forth  immense  quantities 
of  herbage,  grain,  and  fruits — certainly  all  these  effects  continually  pro- 
duced, must  prove  that  a  being  of  the  greatest  power,  wisdom,  and 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES.  309 

benevolence,  is  continually  present  throughout  our  world,  which  he  thus 
supports,  moves,  actuates,  and  makes  fruitful. 

"  The  fire  which  warms  us,  knows  nothing  of  its  serviceableness  to 
this  purpose,  nor  of  the  wise  laws  according  to  which  its  particles  are 
moved  to  produce  this  effect.  And  that  it  is  placed  in  such  a  part  of  the 
house,  where  it  may  be  greatly  beneficial,  and  no  way  hurtful,  is 
ascribed  without  hesitation  to  the  contrivance  and  labour  of  a  person 
who  knew  its  proper  place  and  uses.  And  if  we  came  daily  into  a 
house  wherein  we  saw  this  was  regularly  done,  though  we  never  saw 
an  inhabitant  therein,  we  could  not  doubt  that  the  house  was  occupied  I 
by  a  rational  inhabitant.  That  huge  globe  of  fire  in  the  heavens*, 
which  we  call  the  sun,  and  on  the  light  and  influences  of  which  the- 
fertility  of  our  world,  and  the  life  and  pleasure  of  all  animals  depend,', 
knows  nothing  of  its  serviceableness  to  these  purposes,  nor  of  the  wise 
laws  according  to  which  its  beams  are  dispensed ;  nor  what  place-  or 
motions  were  requisite  for  these  beneficial  purposes.  Yet  its  beams 
are  darted  constantly  in  infinite  numbers,  every  one  according  to  those 
well-chosen  laws,  and  its  proper  place  and  motion  are  maintained. . 
Must  not  then  its  place  be  appointed,  its  motion  regulated,  and  beams 
darted,  by  almighty  wisdom  and  goodness ;  which  prevent  the  sun's 
ever  wandering  in  the  boundless  spaces  of  the  heavens,  so  as  to  leave 
us  in  disconsolate  cold  and  darkness ;  or  coming  so  near,  or  emitting 
his  rays  in  such  a  manner  as  to  burn  us  up  ?  Must  not  the  great  Being 
who  enlightens  and  warms  us  by  the  sun,  his  instrument,  who  raise*  and 
sends  down  the  vapours,  brings  forth  and  ripens  the  grain  and  fruits,  and 
who  is  thus  ever  acting  around  us  for  our  benefit,  be  always  present  in 
the  sun,  throughout  the  air,  and  all  over  the  earth,  which  he  thus  moves 
and  actuates? 

"  This  earth  is  in  itself  a  dead  motionless  mass,  and  void  of  all  coun- 
sel ;  yet  proper  parts  of  it  are  continually  raised  through  the  small 
pipes  which  compose  the  bodies  of  plants  and  trees,  and  are  made  to 
contribute  to  their  growth,  to  open  and  shine  in  blossoms  and  leaves, 
and  to  swell  and  harden  into  fruit.  Could  blind  thoughtless  particles 
thus  continually  keep  on  their  way,  through  numberless  windings,  with- 
out once  blundering,  if  they  were  not  guided  by  an  unerring  hand  ? 
Can  the  most  perfect  human  skill  from  earth  and  water  form  one  grain, 
much  more  a  variety  of  beautiful  and  relishing  fruits  ?  Must  not  the 
directing  mind,  who  does  all  this  constantly,  be  most  wise,  mighty,  and 
benevolent  ?  Must  not  the  Being  who  thus  continually  exerts  his  skill 
and  energy  around  us,  for  our  benefit,  be  confessed  to  be  always  present, 
and  concerned  for  our  welfare  ? 

"  Can  these  effects  be  ascribed  to  any  thing  below  an  all-wise  and 
almighty  Cause  ?  And  must  not  this  cause  be  present,  wherever  he  acts  ? 
Were  God  to  speak  to  us  every  month  from  heaven,  and  with  a  voice 

Vol.  I.  .     24 


370  THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES.  IFART 

loud  as  thunder  declare,  that  he  observes,  provides  for,  and  governs  us , 
this  would  not  be  a  proof  in  the  judgment  of  sound  reason  by  many 
degrees  so  valid.  Since  much  less  wisdom  and  power  are  required  to 
form  such  sounds  in  the  air,  than  to  produce  these  effects ;  and  to  give 
not  merely  verbal  declarations,  but  substantial  evidences  of  his  presence 
and  care  over  us."  (Amory's  Sermons.) 

#  In  every  part  and  place  of  the  universe,  with  which  we  are 
acquainted,  we  perceive  the  exertion  of  a  power,  which  we  believe 
mediately  or  immediately,  to  proceed  from  the  Deity.  For  instance : 
In  what  part  or  point  of  space,  that  has  ever  been  explored,  do  we  not 
discover  attraction?  In  what  regions  do  we  not  find  light?  In  what 
accessible  portion  of  our  globe  do  we  not  meet  with  gravity,  magnetism, 
electricity  ;  together  with  the  properties  also  and  powers  of  organized 
substances,  of  vegetable  or  of  animated  nature?  Nay,  farther,  we  may 
ask,  What  kingdom  is  there  of  nature,  what  corner  of  space,  in  which 
there  is  any  thing  that  can  be  examined  by  us,  where  we  do  not  fall 
upon  contrivance  and  design  ?  The  only  reflection  perhaps  which 
arises  in  our  minds  from  this  view  of  the  world  around  us  is,  that  the 
laws  of  nature  every  where  prevail ;  that  they  are  uniform  and  uni- 
versal. But  what  do  we  mean  by  the  laws  of  nature,  or  by  any  law  ? 
Effects  are  produced  by  power,  not  by  laws.  A  law  cannot  execute 
itself.     A  law  refers  us  to  an  agent."  (Paley.) 

The  usual  argument  a  priori,  on  this  attribute  of  the  Divine  nature, 
has  been  stated  as  follows  :  but  amidst  so  much  demonstration  of  a  much 
higher  kind,  it  cannot  be  of  much  value. 

.  "  The  First  Cause,  the  supreme  all-perfect  mind,  as  he  could  not 
derive  his  being  from  any  other  cause,  must  be  independent  of  all  other, 
and  therefore  unlimited.  He  exists  by  an  absolute  necessity  of  nature  ; 
and  as  all  the  parts  of  infinite  space  are  exactly  uniform  and  alike,  for 
the  same  reason  that  he  exists  in  any  one  part,  he  must  exist  in  all.  No 
reason  can  be  assigned  for  excluding  him  from  one  part,  which  would 
not  exclude  him  from  all.  But  that  he  is  present  in  some  parts  of  space, 
the  evident  effects  of  his  wisdom,  power,  and  benevolence  continually 
produced,  demonstrate,  beyond  all  rational  doubt.  He  must  therefore 
be  alike  present  every  where ;  and  fill  infinite  space  with  his  infinite 
being."  (Amory.) 

Among  metaphysicians,  it  has  been  matter  of  dispute,  whether  God  is 
present  every  where  by  an  infinite  extension  of  his  essence.  This  is 
the  opinion  of  Newton,  Dr.  S.  Clarke,  and  their  followers ;  others  have 
objected  to  this  notion,  that  it  might  then  be  said,  God  is  neither  in  heaven 
or  in  earth,  but  only  a  part  of  God  in  each.  The  former  opinion,  how- 
ever,  appears  most  in  harmony  with  the  Scriptures  ;  though  the  term 
extension,  through  the  inadequacy  of  language,  conveys  too  material  an 
idea.    The  objection  just  stated  is  wholly  grounded  on  notions  taken  from 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  371 

material  o\  jects,  and  is  therefore  of  little  weight,  because  it  is  not  appli- 
cable to  an  immaterial  substance.  It  is  best  to  confess  with  one  who  had 
thought  deeply  on  the  subject,  "  there  is  an  incornprehensibleness  in  the 
tnanner  of  every  thing  about  which  no  controversy  can  or  ought  to  be 
concerned."  (8)  That  we  cannot  comprehend  how  God  is  fully,  and 
completely,  and  undividedly  present  every  where,  need  not  surprise  us, 
when  we  reflect  that  the  manner  in  which  our  own  minds  are  present 
■with  our  bodies  is  as  incomprehensible,  as  the  manner  in  which  tho 
supreme  mind  is  present  with  every  thing  in  the  universe. 


CHAPTER  IV. 

Attributes  of  God. — Omniscience. 

The  omniscience  of  God  is  constantly  connected  in  Scripture  with 
his  omnipresence,  and  forms  a  part  of  almost  every  description  of  that 
attribute  ;  for  as  God  is  a  spirit,  and  therefore  intelligent,  if  he  is  every 
where,  if  nothing  can  exclude  him,  not  even  the  most  solid  bodies,  nor 
'he  minds  of  intelligent  beings,  then  are  all  things  "  naked  and  opened  to 
:he  eyes  of  him  with  whom  we  have  to  do."  "  Where  he  acts,  he  is, 
:ind  where  he  is,  he  perceives."  "  He  understands  and  considers  things 
absolutely,  and  as  they  are  in  their  own  natures,  powers,  properties,  differ- 
ences, together  with  all  the  circumstances  belonging  to  them."  (Bishop 
Wilkins's  Principles.)  "  Known  unto  him  are  all  his  works  from  the 
beginning  of  the  world,"  rather  owr  'cu&jvos  from  all  eternity — known, 
before  they  were  made,  in  their  possible,  and  known,  now  they  are 
made,  in  their  actual  existence.  "  Lord,  thou  hast  searched  me  and 
known  me ;  thou  knowest  my  down-sitting  and  mine  up-rising ;  thou 
understandest  my  thought  afar  off.  Thou  compassest  my  path  and  my 
lying  down,  and  art  acquainted  with  all  my  ways.  For  there  is  not  a 
word  in  my  tongue,  but  lo,  O  Lord,  thou  knowest  it  altogether. — The 
darkness  hideth  not  from  thee ;  but  the  night  shineth  as  the  day. — The 
ways  of  man  are  before  the  eyes  of  the  Lord,  and  he  pondereth  all  his 
goings ;  he  searcheth  their  hearts,  and  understandeth  every  imagination 
of  their  thoughts."  Nor  is  this  perfect  knowledge  to  be  confined  to 
men,  or  angels ;  it  reaches  into  the  state  of  the  dead,  and  penetrates  the 
regions  of  the  damned.  "  Hell,  hades,  is  naked  before  him  ;  and  destruc- 
tion (the  seats  of  destruction)  hath  no  covering."  No  limits  at  all  are 
to  be  set  to  this  perfection.     "  Great  is  the  Lord,  his  understanding  is 

INFINITE." 

In  Psalm  xciv,  the  knowledge  of  God  is  argued  from  the  communica- 

(8)  Jackson's  Existence  and  Unity,  &c. — Vide  also  Watts's  Philosophical  Ef 
says,  and  Law's  Inquiry  into  the  Ideas  of  Spice,  &c. 


372  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  .PART 

tion  of  it  to  men.  "  Understand,  ye  brutish  among  the  people  ;  and,  ye 
fools,  when  will  ye  be  wise  ?  He  that  planted  the  ear,  shall  he  not  hear  ? 
He  that  formed  the  eye,  shall  he  not  see  ?  He  that  chastiseth  the  heathen 
shall  not  he  correct  ?  He  that  teacheth  man  knowledge,  shall  not  he 
know  ?"  This  argument  is  as  easy  as  it  is  conclusive,  obliging  all  who 
acknowledge  a  First  Cause  to  admit  his  perfect  intelligence,  or  to  take 
refuge  in  Atheism  itself.  It  fetches  not  the  proof  from  a  distance,  but 
refers  us  to  our  bosoms  for  the  constant  demonstration  that  the  Lord  is 
a  God  of  knowledge,  and  that  by  him  actions  are  weighed. 

"We  find  in  ourselves  such  qualities  as  thought  and  intelligence, 
power  and  freedom,  &c,  for  which  we  have  the  evidence  of  conscious- 
ness as  much  as  for  our  own  existence.  Indeed,  it  is  only  by  our  con- 
sciousness of  these  that  our  existence  is  known  to  ourselves.  We  know 
likewise  that  these  are  perfections,  and  that  to  have  them  is  better  than 
to  be  without  them.  We  find  also  that  they  have  not  been  in  us  from 
eternity.  They  must,  therefore,  have  had  a  beginning  and  consequently 
some  cause,  for  the  very  same  reason  that  a  being  beginning  to  exist  in 
time  requires  a  cause.  Now  this  cause,  as  it  must  be  superior  to  its 
effect,  must  have  those  perfections  in  a  superior  degree  ;  and  if  it  be  the 
first  cause,  it  must  have  them  in  an  infinite  or  unlimited  degree,  since 
bounds  or  limitation,  without  a  limiter,  would  be  an  effect  without  a 
cause." 

"  If  God  gives  wisdom  to  the  wise,  and  knowledge  to  men  of  under- 
standing, if  he  communicates  this  perfection  to  his  creatures,  the  infer- 
ence must  be  that  he  himself  is  possessed  of  it  in  a  much  more  eminent 
degree  than  they,  that  his  knowledge  is  deep  and  intimate,  reaching  to 
the  very  essence  of  things,  theirs  but  slight  and  superficial ;  his  clear 
and  distinct,  theirs  confused  and  dark  ;  his  certain  and  infallible,  theirs 
doubtful  and  liable  to  mistake ;  his  easy  and  permanent,  theirs  obtained 
with  much  pains,  and  soon  lost  again  by  the  defects  of  memory  or  age  ; 
his  universal  and  extending  to  all  objects,  theirs  short  and  narrow, 
reaching  only  to  some  few  things,  while  that  which  is  wanting  cannot  be 
numbered ;  and  therefore  as  the  heavens  are  higher  than  the  earth,  so, 
as  the  prophet  has  told  us,  are  his  ways  above  their  ways,  and  his 
thoughts  above  their  thoughts."  {Tillotsorts  Sermons.) 

But  His  understanding  is  infinite  ;  a  doctrine  which  the  sacred  writers 
not  only  authoritatively  announce,  but  confirm  by  referring  to  the  wisdom 
displayed  in  his  works.  The  only  difference  between  wisdom  and  know- 
ledge is,  that  the  former  always  supposes  action,  and  action  directed  to 
an  end.  But  wherever  there  is  wisdom,  there  must  be  knowledge ;  and 
as  the  wisdom  of  God  in  the  creation  consists  in  the  formation  of  things 
which,  by  themselves,  or  in  combination  with  others,  shall  produce  cer- 
tain effects,  and  that  in  a  variety  of  operation  which  is  to  us  boundless, 
the  previous  knowledge  of  the  possible  qualities  and  effects  inevitably 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  373 

supposes  a  knowledge  which  can  have  no  limit.  For  as  creation  out  of 
nothing  argues  a  power  which  is  omnipotent,  so  the  knowledge  of  the 
possibilities  of  things  which  are  not,  a  knowledge  which,  from  the  effect, 
we  are  sure  must  exist  in  God,  argues  that  such  a  Being  must  be  om- 
niscient For  "  all  things  being  not  only  present  to  him,  but  also  entirely 
depending  upon  him,  and  having  received  both  their  being  itself,  and  all 
their  powers  and  faculties  from  him,  it  is  manifest  that,  as  he  knows  all 
things  that  are,  so  he  must  likewise  know  all  possibilities  of  things,  that 
is,  all  effects  that  can  be.  For,  being  himself  alone  self  existent,  and 
having  alone  given  to  all  things  all  the  powers  and  faculties  they  are 
endued  with,  it  is  evident  he  must  of  necessity  know  perfectly  what  all 
and  each  of  those  powers  and  faculties,  which  are  derived  wholly  from 
himself,  can  possibly  produce :  and  seeing,  at  one  boundless  view,  all 
the  possible  compositions  and  divisions,  variations  and  changes,  circum- 
stances and  dependencies  of  things ;  all  their  possible  relations  one  to 
another,  and  their  dispositions  or  fitnesses  to  certain  and  respective  ends, 
he  must,  without  possibility  of  error,  know  exactly  what  is  best  and 
properest  in  every  one  of  the  infinite  possible  cases  or  methods  of  dis- 
posing things  :  and  understand  perfectly  how  to  order  and  direct  the 
respective  means,  to  bring  about  what  he  so  knows  to  be,  in  its  kind,  or 
in  the  whole,  the  best  and  fittest  in  the  end.  This  is  what  we  mean  by 
infinite  wisdom." 

On  the  subject  of  the  Divine  ubiquity  and  omniscience,  many  fine 
sentiments  are  found,  even  among  pagans ;  for  an  intelligent  First  Cause 
being  in  any  sense  admitted,  it  was  most  natural  and  obvious  to  ascribe 
to  him  a  perfect  knowledge  of  all  things.  They  acknowledged  "  that 
nothing  is  hid  from  God,  who  is  intimate  to  our  minds,  and  mingles  him- 
self with  our  very  thoughts ;"  (9)  nor  were  they  all  unaware  of  the 
practical  tendency  of  such  a  doctrine,  and  of  the  motive  it  affords  to  a 
cautious  and  virtuous  conduct.  (1)  But  among  them  it  was  not  held,  as 
by  the  sacred  writers,  in  connection  with  other  correct  views  of  the  Divine 
nature,  which  are  essential  to  give  to  this  its  full  moral  effect.  Not 
only  on  this  subject  does  the  manner  in  which  the  Scriptures  state  this 
doctrine  far  transcend  that  of  the  wisest  pagan  Theists ;  but  the  moral 
of  the  sentiment  is  infinitely  more  comprehensive  and  impressive.  With 
them  it  is  connected  with  man's  state  of  trial ;  with  a  holy  law,  all  the 
violations  of  which,  in  thought,  word,  and  deed,  are  both  infallibly  known, 
and  strictly  marked  ;  with  promises  of  grace  ;  and  of  mild  and  protect- 
ing government,  as  to  all  who  have  sought  and  found  the  mercy  of  God, 
forgiving  their  sins  and  admitting  them  into  his  family.     The  wicked  are 

(9)  Nihil  Deo  clausum,  interest  animis  nostris,  et  raediis  cogitationibus  inter- 
venit.     Sen.  Epist. 

(1)  Quis  enim  non  timeat  Deum,  omnia  pervidentem,  et  cogitantem,  &c 
Cic.  De  Nat.  Deor. 


374  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

thus  reminded  that  their  hearts  are  searched,  and  their  sins  noted ;  that 
the  eyes  of  the  Lord  are  upon  their  ways ;  and  that  their  most  secret 
works  will  be  brought  to  light  in  the  day  when  God  the  witness,  shall 
become  God  the  Judge.  In  like  manner,  •*  the  eyes  of  the  Lord  are  said 
to  be  over  the  righteous ;"  that  such  persons  are  kept  by  him  "  who 
never  slumbers  nor  sleeps  ;"  that  he  is  never  "  far  from  them,"  and  that 
"  his  eyes  run  to  and  fro  throughout  the  whole  earth,  to  show  himself 
strong  in  their  behalf;"  that  foes,  to  them  invisible,  are  seen  by  his  eye, 
and  controlled  by  his  arm ;  and  that  this  great  attribute,  so  appalling  to 
wicked  men,  affords  to  them,  not  only  the  most  influential  reason  for  a 
perfectly  holy  temper  and  conduct,  but  the  strongest  motive  to  trust,  and 
joy,  and  hope,  amidst  the  changes  and  afflictions  of  the  present  life. 
Socrates,  as  well  as  other  philosophers,  could  express  themselves  well, 
so  long  as  they  expressed  themselves  generally,  on  this  subject.  The 
former  could  say,  "  Let  your  own  frame  instruct  you.  Does  the  mind 
inhabiting  your  body  dispose  and  govern  it  with  ease  ?  Ought  you  not 
then  to  conclude,  that  the  universal  mind  with  equal  ease  actuates  and 
governs  universal  nature  ;  and  that,  when  you  can  at  once  consider  the 
interests  of  the  Athenians  at  home,  in  Egypt,  and  in  Sicily,  it  is  not  too 
much  for  the  Divine  wisdom  to  take  care  of  the  universe  1  These  reflec- 
tions will  soon  convince  you  that  the  greatness  of  the  Divine  mind  is 
such,  as  at  once  to  see  all  things,  hear  all  things,  be  present  every  where, 
and  direct  all  the  affairs  of  the  world."  These  views  are  just ;  but  they 
wanted  that  connection  with  others  relative  both  to  the  Divine  nature 
and  government,  which  we  see  only  in  the  Bible,  to  render  them  influ- 
ential ;  they  neither  gave  correct  moral  distinctions  nor  led  to  a  virtuous 
practice,  no  not  in  Socrates,  who  on  some  subjects,  and  especially  on  the 
personality  of  the  Deity,  and  his  independence  on  matter,  raised  himself 
far  above  the  rest  of  his  philosophic  brethren,  but  in  moral  feeling  and 
practice  was  as  censurable  as  they.  (2) 

(2)  Several  parallels  have  been  at  different  times  drawn,  even  by  Christian 
divines,  between  the  character  of  Socrates  and  Christ,  doubtless  with  the  inten- 
tion of  exalting  the  latter,  but  yet  so  as  to  veil  the  true  character  of  the  former. 
How  great  is  the  disgust  one  feels  at  that  want  of  all  moral  delicacy  from  which 
only  such  comparisons  could  emanate,  when  the  true  character  of  Socrates 
comes  to  be  unveiled  !  On  a  sermon  preached  at  Cambridge  by  Dr.  Butler,  which 
contains  one  of  these  parallels,  "  the  Christian  Observer"  has  the  following  just 
remarks : — 

"  We  earnestly  request  that  such  of  our  readers  as  are  sufficiently  acquainted  with 
classical  literature  to  institute  the  examination,  would  turn  to  the  eleventh  chap- 
ter of  the  third  book  of  the  Memorabilia  of  Xenophoh,  and  we  are  persuaded  that 
they  will  not  think  our  reprehension  of  Dr.  Butler  misplaced  The  very  title 
of  the  chapter,  we  should  have  thought,  would  have  precluded  any  Christiar 
scholar,  much  more  any  Christian  divine,  from  the  possibility  of  being  guilty  of 
a  profanation  so  gross  and  revolting.     The  title  of  it  is  Cum  Meretrice  Theodata 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  375 

The  foreknowledge  of  God,  or  his  prescience  of  future  things,  thoogh 
contingent,  is  by  divines  generally  included  in  the  term  omniscience,  and 
for  this  they  have  unquestionably  the  authority  of  the  Holy  Scriptures. 
From  the  difficulty  which  has  been  supposed  to  exist,  in  reconciling  this 
with  the  freedom  of  human  actions,  and  man's  accountability,  some  have 
however  refused  to  allow  prescience,  at  least  of  contingent  actions,  to  be 
a  property  of  the  Divine  nature ;  and  others  have  adopted  various  modi- 
fications of  opinion,  as  to  the  knowledge  of  God,  in  order  to  elude,  or  to 
remove  the  objection.  This  subject  was  glanced  at  in  part  i,  chap.  9, 
but  in  this  place,  where  the  omniscience  of  God  is  under  consideration, 
the  three  leading  theories,  which  have  been  resorted  to  for  the  purpose 
of  maintaining  unimpugned  the  moral  government  of  God,  and  the  free- 
dom  and  responsibility  of  man  seem  to  require  examination,  that  the 
true  doctrine  of  Scripture  may  be  fully  brought  out  and  established.  (3) 

de  arte  hominum  alliciendorum  disserit,  (Socrates,  viz.)  Doubtless  many  who 
heard  Dr.  Butler  preach,  and  many  more  who  have  since  read  his  sermon,  have 
taken  it  for  granted,  that  when  he  ventured  to  recommend  the  conduct  of  Socra- 
tes, in  associating  with  courtezans,  as  being  an  adumbration  with  that  of  our 
Saviour,  he  must  have  alluded  to  instances  in  the  life  of  that  philosopher  of  his 
having  laboured  to  reclaim  the  vicious,  or  to  console  the  penitent  with  the  hope 
of  pardon.  For  ourselves,  we  know  of  no  such  instances.  But  what  will  be  his 
surprise  to  find  that  the  intercourse  of  Socrates  with  courtezans,  as  it  is  here  re- 
corded by  Xenophon,  was  of  the  most  licentious  and  profligate  description?" 

(3)  There  is  another  theory  which  was  formerly  much  debated,  under  the 
name  of  Scientia  Media;  but  to  which,  in  the  present  day,  reference  is  seldom 
made.  The  knowledge  of  God  was  distributed  into  Necessary,  which  goes  before 
every  act  of  the  will -in  the  order  of  nature,  and  by  which  he  knows  himself,  and 
all  possible  things : — Free,  which  follows  the  act  of  the  will,  and  by  which  God 
knows  all  things  which  he  has  decreed  to  do  and  to  permit,  as  things  which  he 
wills  to  be  done  or  permitted  : — Middle,  so  called  because  partaking  of  the  two 
former  kinds,  by  which  he  knows,  sub  conditione,  what  men  and  angels  would 
voluntarily  do  under  any  given  circumstances.  "  Tertiam  Mediam,  qua  sub  con- 
ditione novit  quid  homines  aut  angeli  facturi  essent  pro  sua  libertate,  si  cum  his 
aut  illis  circumstantiis,  in  hoc  vel  in  illo  rerum  ordine  constituerentur." — Episco- 
pius  De  Scientia  Dei.  They  illustrate  this  kind  of  knowledge  by  such  passages 
as,  M  Wo  unto  thee,  Chorazin  !  wo  unto  thee,  Bethsaida  !  for  if  the  mighty  works 
which  were  done  in  you,  had  been  done  in  Tyre  and  Sidon,  they  would  have  re- 
pented long  ago  in  sackcloth  and  ashes."  This  distinction,  which  was  taken 
from  the  Jesuits,  who  drew  it  from  the  schoolmen,  was  at  least  favoured  by  same 
of  the  remonstrant  divines,  as  the  extract  from  Episcopius  shows;  and  they  seem 
to  have  been  led  to  it  by  the  circumstance  that  almost  all  the  high  Calvinist  theo- 
logians of  that  day  entirely  denied  the  possibility  of  contingent  future  actions 
being  foreknown,  in  order  to  support  on  this  ground  their  doctrine  of  absolute 
predestination.  In  this,  however,  those  remonstrants,  who  adopted  that  notion, 
did  not  follow  their  great  leader  Arminius,  who  felt  no  need  of  this  subterfuge, 
but  stood  on  the  plain  declarations  of  Scripture,  unembarrassed  with  metaphysical 
distinctions.  Gomarus,  on  the  other  side,  adopted  this  opinion,  which  was  con- 
fined, among  the  Calvinists  of  that  day,  to  himself  and  another.  Gomarus  betook 
himself  to  this  notion  of  conditional  prescience,  in  order  to  avoid  being  charged 


376  THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES.  [PAHT 

The  Chevalier  Ramsay,  among  his  other  speculations,  holds  "it  a 
matter  of  choice  in  God,  to  think  of  finite  ideas  ;"  and  similar  opinions, 
though  variously  worded,  have  been  occasionally  adopted.  In  substance 
these  opinions  are,  that  though  the  knowledge  of  God  be  infinite,  as  his 
power  is  infinite,  there  is  no  more  reason  to  conclude  that  his  knowledge 
should  be  always  exerted  to  the  full  extent  of  its  capacity,  than  that  his 
power  should  be  employed  to  the  extent  of  his  omnipotence ;  and  that 
if  we  suppose  him  to  choose  not  to  know  some  contingencies,  the  infinite- 
ness  of  his  knowledge  is  not  thereby  impugned.  To  this  it  may  be 
answered,  "  that  the  infinite  power  of  God  is  in  Scripture  represented, 
as  in  the  nature  of  things  it  must  be,  as  an  infinite  capacity,  and  not  as 
infinite  in  act ;  but  that  the  knowledge  of  God  is  on  the  contrary  never 
represented  there  to  us  as  a  capacity  to  acquire  knowledge,  but  as 
actually  comprehending  all  things  that  are,  and  all  things  that  can  be. 

2.  That  the  notion  of  God's  choosing  to  know  some  things,  and  not  to 
know  others,  supposes  a  reason  why  he  refuses  to  know  any  class  of 
things  or  events,  which  reason,  it  would  seem,  can  only  arise  out  of 
their  nature  and  circumstances,  and  therefore  supposes  at  least  a  partial 
knowledge  of  them,  from  which  the  reason  for  his  not  choosing  to  know 
them  arises.     The  doctrine  is  therefore  somewhat  contradictory.     But 

3,  it  is  fatal  to  this  opinion,  that  it  does  not  at  all  meet  the  difficulty 
arising  out  of  the  question  of  the  congruity  of  Divine  prescience,  and 
the  free  actions  of  man ;  since  some  contingent  actions,  for  which  men 
have  been  made  accountable,  we  are  sure  have  been  foreknown  by  God, 

with  making  God  the  author  of  the  sin  of  Adam,  and  found  it  a  convenient  mode 
of  eluding  so  formidable  an  objection,  as  Curcellseus  remarks  :  "Sapienter  ergo, 
meo  judicio,  Gomarus,  cum  suam  de  reprobationis  objecto  sententiam  hoc  ab- 
surdo  videret  urgeri,  quod  Deum  peccati  Adami  auctorem  constituerit,  ad  prsesci- 
entiam  conditionatam  confugit,  qua  Deus  ex  infinito  scientias  sua  lumine,  quadam 
futura  non  absolute,  sed  certa  conditione  posita  pranovit.  Hac  enim  ratione 
commodissime  ictum  istum  declinavit. — Eumque  postea  secutus  est  Wallseus  in 
Locis  suis  Communibus  ;  qui  etiam  feliciter  scopulum  ilium  prastervehitur. — 
Nullum  prseterea  ex  Calvini  discipulis  novi,  qui  hanc  in  Deo  scientiam  agnoscat. 
— De  Jure  Dei. 

To  what  practical  end  this  opinion  went,  it  is  not  easy  to  see  either  as  to  such 
■  of  the  Calvinists  or  of  the  Arminians  as  adopted  it.  The  point  of  the  question, 
after  all,  was,  whether  the  actual  circumstances  in  which  a  free  agent  would  be 
placed,  and  his  conduct  accordingly,  could  both  be  foreknown.  Gomarus,  who 
adopted  the  view  of  conditional  foreknowledge,  as  to  Adam  at  least,  conceded 
the  liberty  of  the  will,  so  far  as  the  first  man  was  concerned,  to  his  opponents ; 
but  Episcopius  and  others  conceded  by  this  notion  something  of  more  importance 
to  the  8Upralapsarian3,  who  denied  that  the  prescience  of  future  contingencies 
was  at  all  possible.  However  both  agreed  to  destroy  the  prescience  of  God  as  to 
actual  contingencies,  though  the  advocates  of  the  Media  Scientia  reserved  the 
point  as  to  possible,  or  rather  hypothetic  ones,  and  thus  the  whole  was,  after  all, 
resolved  into  the  wider  question,  Is  the  knowledge  of  future  contingencies  possi 
ble  ?  This  point  will  be  presently  considered. 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  377 

because  by  his  Spirit  in  the  prophets  they  were  foretold ;  and  if  the 
freedom  of  man  can  in  these  cases  be  reconciled  to  the  prescience  of 
God,  there  is  no  greater  difficulty  in  any  other  case  which  can  possibly 
occur. 

A  second  theory  is,  that  the  foreknowledge  of  contingent  events, 
being  in  its  own  nature  impossible,  because  it  implies  a  contradiction,  it 
does  no  dishonour  to  the  Divine  Being  to  affirm,  that  of  such  events  he 
has,  and  can  have  no  prescience  whatever ;  and  thus  the  prescience  of 
God,  as  to  moral  actions  being  wholly  denied,  the  difficulty  of  reconciling 
it  with  human  freedom  and  accountability  has  no  existence.  (4) 

To  this  the  same  answer  must  be  given  as  to  the  former.  It  does  not 
meet  the  case,  so  long  as  the  Scriptures  are  allowed  to  contain  prophecies 
of  rewardable  and  punishable  actions. 

That  man  is  accountable  to  God  for  his  conduct,  and  therefore  free, 
that  is,  laid  under  no  invincible  necessity  of  acting  in  a  given  manner, 
are  doctrines  clearly  contained  in  the  Bible,  and  the  notion  of  necessity 
has  here  its  full  and  satisfactory  reply ;  but  if  a  difficulty  should  be  felt 
in  reconciling  the  freedom  of  an  action  with  the  prescience  of  it,  it 
affords  not  the  slightest  relief  to  deny  the  foreknowledge  of  God  as  to 
actions  in  general,  while  the  Scriptures  contain  predictions  of  the  con- 
duct  of  men  whose  actions  cannot  have  been  determined  by  invincible 
necessity,  because  they  were  actions  for  which  they  received  from  God 
a  just  and  marked  punishment.  Whether  the  scheme  of  relief  be,  that 
the  knowledge  of  God,  like  his  power,  is  arbitrary  ;  or  that  the  prescience 
of  contingencies  is  impossible ;  so  long  as  the  Scriptures  are  allowed  to 
contain  predictions  of  the  conduct  of  men,  good  or  bad,  the  difficulty 
remains  in  all  its  force.  The  whole  body  of  prophecy  is  founded  on  the 
certain  prescience  of  contingent  actions,  or  it  is  not  prediction,  but  guess 
and  conjecture — to  such  fearful  results  does  the  denial  of  the  Divine 
prescience  lead !  No  one  can  deny  that  the  Bible  contains  predictions 
of  the  rise  and  fall  of  several  kingdoms ;  that  Daniel,  for  instance,  pro- 
phesied of  the  rise,  the  various  fortune,  and  the  fall  of  the  celebrated 
monarchies  of  antiquity.  But  empires  do  not  rise  and  fall  wholly  by 
immediate  acts  of  God ;  they  are  not  thrown  up  like  new  islands  in  the 
ocean,  they  do  not  fall  like  cities  in  an  earthquake,  by  the  direct  exertion 
of  Divine  power.  They  are  carried  through  their  various  stages  of 
advance  and  decline,  by  the  virtues  and  the  wees  of  men,  which  God 
makes  the  instruments  of  their  prosperity  or  destruction.  Counsels, 
wars,  science,  revolutions,  all  crowd  in  their  agency  ;  and  the  predictions 
are  of  the  combined  and  ultimate  results  of  all  these  circumstances, 
which,  as  arising  out  of  the  vices  and  virtues  of  men,  out  of  innu- 

(4)  So  little  effect  has  this  theory  in  removing  any  difficulty,  that  persons  of 
the  most  opposite  theological  sentiments  have  claimed  it  in  their  favour. — Socinus 
and  his  followers, — all  the  supralapsarian  Calvinists, — and  a  few  Arminians. 


378  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTE*.  [PART 

merable  acts  of  choice,  are  contingent.  Seen  they  must  have  been 
through  all  their  stages,  and  seen  in  their  results,  for  prophecy  has 
registered  those  results.  The  prescience  of  them  cannot  be  denied,  for 
that  is  on  the  record  ;  and  if  certain  prescience  involves  necessity,  then 
are  the  daily  virtues  and  vices  of  men  not  contingent.  It  was  predicted 
that  Babylon  should  be  taken  by  Cyrus  in  the  midst  of  a  midnight  revel, 
in  which  the  gates  should  be  left  unguarded  and  open.  Now,  if  all  the 
actions  which  arose  out  of  the  warlike  disposition  and  ambition  of  Cyrus 
were  contingent,  what  becomes  of  the  principle,  that  it  is  impossible  to 
foreknow  contingencies  ? — they  were  foreknown,  because  the  result  of 
them  was  predicted.  If  the  midnight  revel  of  the  Babylonian  monarch 
was  contingent,  (the  circumstance  which  led  to  the  neglect  of  the  gates 
of  the  city,)  that  also  was  foreknown,  because  predicted ;  if  not  con- 
tingent, the  actions  of  both  monarchs  were  necessary,  and  to  neither  of 
them  can  be  ascribed  virtue  or  vice. 

Our  Lord  predicts,  most  circumstantially,  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem 
by  the  Romans.  If  this  be  allowed,  then  the  contingencies  involved  in 
the  conduct  of  the  Jews  who  provoked  that  fatal  war — in  the  Roman 
senate  who  decreed  it — in  the  Roman  generals  who  carried  it  on — in  the 
Roman  and  Jewish  soldiers  who  were  engaged  in  it — were  all  foreseen, 
and  the  result  of  them  predicted :  if  they  were  not  contingencies,  that 
is,  if  they  were  not  free  actions,  then  the  virtues  and  vices  of  both 
parties,  and  all  the  acts  of  skill,  and  courage,  and  enterprise  ;  and  all 
the  cruelties  and  sufferings  of  the  besieged  and  the  besiegers,  arising 
out  of  innumerable  volitions,  and  giving  rise  to  the  events  so  circum- 
stantially marked  in  the  prophecy,  were  determined  by  an  irreversible 
necessity.  The  53d  chapter  of  Isaiah  predicts,  that  Messiah  should  be 
taken  away  by  a  violent  death,  inflicted  by  men  in  defiance  of  all  the 
principles  of  justice.  The  record  cannot  be  blotted  out ;  and  if  the 
conduct  of  the  Jews  was  not,  as  the  advocates  of  this  scheme  will  con- 
tend it  was  not,  influenced  by  necessity,  then  we  have  all  the  contin- 
gencies of  their  hatred,  and  cruelties,  and  injustice  predicted,  and 
therefore  foreknown.  The  same  observations  might  be  applied  to  St. 
Paul's  prediction  of  a  "  falling  away,"  in  the  Church ;  of  the  rise  of 
the  "  man  of  sin ;"  and,  in  a  word,  to  every  prediction  which  the  sacred 
volume  contains.  If  there  be  any  predictions  in  the  Bible  at  all,  every 
scheme  which  denies  the  prescience  of  contingencies  must  compel  us 
into  the  doctrine  of  necessity,  which  in  this  place  it  is  not  necessary  to 
discuss. 

On  the  main  principle  of  the  theory  just  mentioned,  that  the  pre- 
science of  contingent  events  is  impossible,  because  their  nature  would 
be  destroyed  by  it,  we  may  add  a  few  remarks.  That  the  subject  is 
incomprehensible  as  to  the  manner  in  which  the  Divine  Being  foreknows 
future  events  of  this  or  of  any  kind,  even  the  greatest  minds,  which 


SECOND. )  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES. 


379 


have  applied  themselves  to  such  speculations,  have  felt  and  acknow- 
ledged. The  fact,  that  such  a  property  exists  in  the  Divine  nature  is, 
however,  too  clearly  stated  in  Scripture  to  allow  of  any  doubt  in  those 
who  are  disposed  to  submit  to  its  authority ;  and  it  is  not  left  to  the  un- 
certainty of  our  speculations  on  the  properties  of  spiritual  natures,  either 
to  be  confirmed  or  disproved.  Equally  clear  is  it  that  the  moral  actions 
of  men  are  not  necessitated,  because  human  accountability  is  the  main 
pillar  of  that  moral  government,  whose  principles,  conduct,  and  ends, 
are  stated  so  largely  in  Divine  revelation.  Whatever,  therefore,  becomes 
of  human  speculations,  these  points  are  sufficiently  settled  on  an  au- 
thority which  is  abundantly  sufficient.  To  the  objection  of  metaphy- 
sicians of  different  classes,  against  either  of  these  principles,  that  such 
is  not  the  sense  of  the  Scriptures,  because  the  fact  "  cannot  be  so,  it 
involves  a  contradiction"  not  the  least  importance  is  to  be  attached, 
when  the  plain,  concurrent,  and  uniform  sense  of  Scripture,  interpreted 
as  any  other  book  would  be  interpreted,  determines  to  the  contrary.  It 
surely  does  not  follow  that  a  thing  cannot  be,  because  men  do  not  see,  or 
pretend  not  to  see,  that  it  can  be.  This  would  lay  the  foundation  of  our 
faith  in  the  strength  or  weakness  of  other  men's  intellect.  We  are  not, 
however,  in  many  cases,  left  wholly  to  this  answer,  and  it  may  be  shown 
that  the  position,  that  certain  prescience  destroys  contingency,  is  a  mere 
sophism,  and  that  this  conclusion  is  connected  with  the  premise,  by  a 
confused  use  of  terms. 

The  great  fallacy  in  the  argument,  that  the  certain  prescience  of  a 
moral  action  destroys  its  contingent  nature,  lies  in  supposing  that  con- 
tingency and  certainty  are  the  opposites  of  each  other.  It  is,  perhaps, 
unfortunate,  that  a  word  which  is  of  figurative  etymology,  and  which 
consequently  can  only  have  an  ideal  application  to  such  subjects,  should 
have  grown  into  common  use  in  this  discussion,  because  it  is  more  liable 
on  that  account  to  present  itself  to  different  minds  under  different  shades 
of  meaning.  If,  however,  the  term  contingent  in  this  controversy  has 
any  definite  meaning  at  all,  as  applied  to  the  moral  actions  of  men,  it 
must  mean  their  freedom,  and  stands  opposed  not  to  certainty,  but  to 
necessity.  A  free  action  is  a  voluntary  one ;  and  an  action  which 
results  from  the  choice  of  the  agent,  is  distinguished  from  a  necessary 
one  in  this,  that  it  might  not  have  been,  or  have  been  otherwise,  accord, 
ing  to  the  self-determining  power  of  the  agent.  It  is  with  reference  to 
this  specific  quality  of  a  free  action,  that  the  term  contingency  is  used, 
— it  might  have  been  otherwise,  in  other  words,  it  was  not  necessitated. 
Contingency  in  moral  actions  is,  therefore,  their  freedom,  and  is  opposed, 
not  to  certainty,  but  to  necessity.  The  very  nature  of  this  controversy 
fixes  this  as  the  precise  meaning  of  the  term.  The  question  is  not,  in 
point  of  fact,  about  the  certainty  of  moral  actions,  that  is,  whether  they 
mil  happen  or  not ;  but  about  the  nature  of  them,  whether  free  or  con- 


t*80  THEOLOGICAL   INSTITUTES.  [PART 

strained,  whether  they  must  happen  or  not.  Those  who  advocate  this 
theory  care  not  about  the  certainty  (5)  of  actions,  simply  considered, 
that  is,  whether  they  will  take  place  or  not ;  the  reason  why  they  object 
to  a  certain  prescience  of  moral  actions  is,  that  they  conclude,  that  such 
a  prescience  renders  them  necessary.  It  is  the  quality  of  the  action  for 
which  they  contend,  not  whether  it  will  happen  or  not.  If  contingency 
meant  uncertainty,  the  sense  in  which  such  theorists  take  it,  the  dispute 
would  be  at  an  end.  But  though  an  uncertain  action  cannot  be  foreseen 
as  certain,  a  free,  unnecessitated  action  may ;  for  there  is  nothing  in  the 
knowledge  of  the  action,  in  the  least,  to  affect  its  nature.  Simple  know- 
ledge is,  in  no  sense,  a  cause  of  action,  nor  can  it  be  conceived  to  be 
causal,  unconnected  with  exerted  power ;  for  mere  knowledge,  therefore, 
an  action  remains  free  or  necessitated,  as  the  case  may  be.  A 
necessitated  action  is  not  made  a  voluntary  one  by  its  being  foreknown  : 
a  free  action  is  not  made  a  necessary  one.  Free  actions  foreknown 
will  not,  therefore,  cease  to  be  contingent.  But  how  stands  the  case  as 
to  their  certainty  ?  Precisely  on  the  same  ground.  The  certainty  of  a 
necessary  action  foreknown,  does  not  result  from  the  knowledge  of  the 
action,  but  from  the  operation  of  the  necessitating  cause ;  and  in  like 
manner,  the  certainty  of  a  free  action  does  not  result  from  the  know- 
ledge of  it,  which  is  no  cause  at  all,  but  from  the  voluntary  cause,  that 
is,  the  determination  of  the  will.  It  alters  not  the  case  in  the  least,  to 
say  that  tha  voluntary  action  might  have  been  otherwise.  Had  it  been 
otherwise,  the  knowledge  of  it  would  have  been  otherwise ;  but  as  the 
will,  which  gives  birth  to  the  action,  is  not  dependent  upon  the  previous 
knowledge  of  God,  but  the  knowledge  of  the  action  upon  foresight  of 
the  choice  of  the  will,  neither  the  will  nor  the  act  is  controlled  by  the 
knowledge,  and  the  action,  though  foreseen,  is  still  free  or  contingent. 

The  foreknowledge  of  God  has  then  no  influence  upon  either  the 
freedom  or  the  certainty  of  actions,  for  this  plain  reason,  that  it  is  know, 
ledge,  and  not  influence ;  and  actions  may  be  certainly  foreknown,  with- 
out their  being  rendered  necessary  by  that  foreknowledge.  But  here  it 
is  said,  If  the  result  of  an  absolute  contingency  be  certainly  foreknown, 
it  can  have  no  other  result,  it  cannot  happen  otherwise.  This  is  not  the 
true  inference.  It  will  not  happen  otherwise ;  but  I  ask,  why  can  it 
not  happen  otherwise  1  Can  is  an  expression  of  potentiality,  it  denotes 
power  or  possibility.  The  objection  is,  that  it  is  not  possible  that  the 
action  should  otherwise  happen.  But  why  not  ?  What  deprives  it  of 
that  power  ?  If  a  necessary  action  were  in  question,  it  could  not  other- 
wise happen  than  as  the  necessitating  cause  shall  compel ;  but  then  that 

(5)  Certainty  is,  properly  speaking,  no  quality  of  an  action  at  all,  unless  it  be 
taken  in  the  sense  of  a  fixed  and  necessitated  action ;  in  this  controversy  it 
means  the  certainty  which  the  mind  that  foresees  has,  that  an  action  will  be  done, 
and  the  certainty  is  therefore  in  the  mind,  and  not  in  the  action. 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  381 

would  arise  from  the  necessitating  cause  solely  and  not  from  the  pre- 
science of  the  action,  which  is  not  causal.  But  if  the  action  be  free, 
and  it  enter  into  the  very  nature  of  a  voluntary  action  to  be  uncon- 
strained, then  it  might  have  happened  in  a  thousand  other  ways,  or  not 
have  happened  at  all ;  the  foreknowledge  of  it  no  more  affects  its  nature 
in  this  case  than  in  the  other.  All  its  potentiality,  so  to  speak,  still  re- 
mains, independent  of  foreknowledge,  which  neither  adds  to  its  power 
of  happening  otherwise,  nor  diminishes  it.  But  then  we  are  told,  that 
the  prescience  of  it,  in  that  case,  must  be  uncertain :  not  unless  any 
person  can  prove,  that  the  Divine  prescience  is  unable  to  dart  through 
all  the  workings  of  the  human  mind,  all  its  comparison  of  things  in  the 
judgment,  all  the  influences  of  motives  on  the  affections,  all  the  hesitan- 
cies, and  haltings  of  the  will,  to  its  final  choice.  "  Such  knowledge  is 
too  wonderful  for  us"  but  it  is  the  knowledge  of  Him  who  "  understand- 
eth  the  thoughts  of  man  afar  oft'." 

But  if  a  contingency  will  have  a  given  result,  to  that  result  it  must  be 
determined.  Not  in  the  least.  We  have  seen  that  it  cannot  be  deter- 
mined to  a  given  result  by  mere  precognition,  for  we  have  evidence  in 
our  own  minds  that  mere  knowledge  is  not  causal  to  the  actions  of 
another.  It  is  determined  to  its  result  by  the  will  of  the  agent ;  but 
even  in  that  case,  it  cannot  be  said,  that  it  must  be  determined  to  that 
result,  because  it  is  of  the  nature  of  freedom  to  be  unconstrained ;  so 
that  here  we  have  an  instance  in  the  case  of  a  free  agent  that  he  will 
act  in  some  particular  manner,  but  that  it  by  no  means  follows  from 
what  will  be,  whether  foreseen  or  not,  that  it  must  be. 

On  this  subject,  so  much  controverted,  and  on  which  so  much,  in  the 
way  of  logical  consequence,  depends,  I  add  a  few  authorities. 

Dr.  S.  Clarke  observes, "  They  who  suppose  that  events,  which  are 
called  contingent,  cannot  be  certainly  foreknown,  must  likewise  suppose 
that  when  there  is  not  a  chain  of  necessary  causes,  there  can  be  no 
certainty  of  any  future  events ;  but  this  is  a  mistake,  for  let  us  suppose 
that  there  is  in  man  a  power  of  beginning  motion,  and  of  acting  with 
what  has,  of  late,  been  called  philosophical  freedom ;  and  let  us  sup- 
pose farther,  that  the  actions  of  such  a  man  cannot  possibly  be  fore- 
known ;  will  there  not  yet  be  in  the  nature  of  things,  notwithstanding 
this  supposition,  the  same  certainty  of  event  in  every  one  of  the  man's 
actions,  as  if  they  were  ever  so  fatal  and  necessary  ?  For  instance, 
suppose  the  man,  by  an  internal  principle  of  motion,  and  an  absolute 
freedom  of  mind,  to  do  some  particular  action  to-day,  and  suppose  it  was 
not  possible  that  this  action  should  have  been  foreseen  yesterday,  was 
there  not,  nevertheless,  the  same  certainty  of  event,  as  if  it  had  been 
foreseen,  and  absolutely  necessary  ?  That  is,  would  it  not  have  been  as 
certain  a  truth  yesterday,  and  from  eternity,  that  this  action  was  an 
event  to  be  performed  to-day,  notwithstanding  the  supposed  freedom,  as 


382  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

it  is  now  a  certain  and  infallible  truth  that  it  is  performed?  Mere  cei> 
tainty  of  event,  therefore,  does  not,  in  any  measure,  imply  necessity. 
And  surely  it  implies  no  contradiction  to  suppose,  that  every  future 
event  which,  in  the  nature  of  things,  is  now  certain,  may  now  be  cer- 
tainly known  by  that  intelligence  which  is  omniscient.  The  manner 
how  God  can  foreknow  future  events,  without  a  chain  of  necessary 
causes,  it  is  indeed  impossible  for  us  to  explain,  yet  some  sort  of  gene- 
ral notion  of  it  we  may  conceive.  For,  as  a  man  who  has  no  influence 
over  another  person's  actions,  can  yet  often  perceive  beforehand  what 
that  other  will  do ;  and  a  wiser  and  more  experienced  man,  with  still 
greater  probability  will  foresee  what  another,  with  whose  disposition  he  is 
perfectly  acquainted,  will  in  certain  circumstances  do  ;  and  an  angel,  with 
still  less  degree  of  error,  may  have  a  farther  prospect  into  men's  future 
actions  :  so  it  is  very  reasonable  to  conceive,  that  God,  without  influenc- 
ing men's  wills  by  his  power,  or  subjecting  them  to  a  chain  of  necessary 
causes,  cannot  but  have  a  knowledge  of  future  free  events,  as  much 
more  certain  than  men  or  angels  can  possibly  have,  as  the  perfection 
of  his  nature  is  greater  than  that  of  theirs.  The  distinct  manner  how 
he  foresees  these  things,  we  cannot,  indeed,  explain ;  but  neither  can 
we  explain  the  manner  of  numberless  other  things,  of  the  reality  of 
which,  however,  no  man  entertains  a  doubt."  , 

Dr.  Copleston  judiciously  remarks  : — 

"The  course  indeed  of  the  material  world  seems  to  proceed  upon 
such  fixed  and  uniform  laws,  that  short  experience  joined  to  close  atten- 
tion is  sufficient  to  enable  a  man,  for  all  useful  purposes,  to  anticipate 
the  general  result  of  causes  now  in  action.  In  the  moral  world  much 
greater  uncertainty  exists.  Every  one  feels,  that  what  depends  upon 
the  conduct  of  his  fellow  creatures  is  less  certain,  than  what  is  to  be 
brought  about  by  the  agency  of  the  laws  of  matter  :  and  yet  even  here, 
since  man  is  a  being  of  a  certain  composition,  having  such  and  such 
faculties,  inclinations,  affections,  desires,  and  appetites,  it  is  very  pos- 
sible for  those  who  study  his  nature  attentively,  especially  for  those  who 
have  practical  experience  of  any  individual  or  of  any  community  of 
men,  to  foretell  how  they  will  be  affected,  and  how  they  will  act  under 
any  supposed  circumstances.  The  same  power  (in  an  unlimited  degree 
as  before)  it  is  natural  and  reasonable  to  ascribe  to  that  Being,  who 
excels  the  wisest  of  us  infinitely  more  than  the  wisest  of  us  excels  his 
fellow  creatures. 

"  It  never  enters  the  mind  of  a  person  who  reflects  in  this  way,  that 
his  anticipation  of  another's  conduct  lays  any  restraint  upon  that  man's 
conduct  when  he  comes  to  act.  The  anticipation  indeed  is  relative  to 
himself,  not  to  the  other.  If  it  affected  him  in  the  remotest  degree,  his 
conduct  would  vary  in  proportion  to  the  strength  of  the  conviction  in  the 
mind  of  the  thinker  that  he  will  so  act.     But  no  man  really  believes  in 


SECOND.j 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES.  383 


this  magical  sympathy.  No  man  supposes  the  certainty  of  the  event  (to 
use  a  common,  but,  as  I  conceive,  an  improper  term,)  to  correspond  at 
all  with  the  certainty  of  him  who  foretells  or  expects  it.  In  fact,  every 
day's  experience  shows,  that  men  are  deceived  in  the  event,  even  when 
they  regarded  themselves  as  most  certain,  and  when  they  would  readily 
have  used  the  strongest  phrases  to  denote  that  certainty,  not  from  any 
intention  to  deceive,  but  from  an  honest  persuasion  that  such  an  event 
must  happen.  How  is  it  then?  God  can  never  be  deceived — his 
knowledge  therefore  is  always  accompanied  or  followed  by  the  event — 
and  yet  if  we  get  an  idea  of  what  his  knowledge  is,  by  our  own,  why 
should  we  regard  it  as  dragging  the  event  along  with  it,  when  in  our 
own  case  we  acknowledge  the  two  things  to  have  no  connection  ? 

"  But  here  the  advocate  for  necessity  interposes,  and  says,  True, 
your  knowledge  does  not  affect  the  event,  over  which  you  have  no 
power :  but  God,  who  is  all-powerful,  who  made  all  things  as  they  are, 
and  who  knows  all  that  will  come  to  pass,  must  be  regarded  as  render- 
ing that  necessary  which  he  foreknows — just  as  even  you  may  be  con- 
sidered accessary  to  the  event  which  you  anticipate,  exactly  in 
proportion  to  the  share  you  have  had  in  preparing  the  instruments  or 
forming  the  minds  of  those  who  are  to  bring  it  about. 

"To  this  I  answer,  that  the  connection  between  knowledge  and  the 
event  is  not  at  all  established  by  this  argument.  It  is  not  because  I 
knew  what  would  follow,  but  because  I  contributed  toward  it,  that  it  is 
influenced  by  me.  You  may  if  you  please  contend,  that  because  God 
made  every  thing,  therefore  all  things  that  happen  are  done  by  him. 
This  is  taking  another  ground,  for  the  doctrine  of  necessity,  which  will 
be  considered  presently.  All  I  maintain  now  is,  that  the  notion  of  God's 
foreknowledge  ought  not  to  interfere  in  the  slightest  degree  with  our 
belief  in  the  contingency  of  events,  and  the  freedom  of  human  actions. 
The  confusion  has,  I  conceive,  arisen  chiefly  from  the  ambiguity  of  the 
word  certainty,  used  as  it  is  even  by  learned  writers,  both  in  its  relation 
to  the  mind  which  thinks,  and  to  the  object  about  which  it  is  thinking." 
(Inquiry  into  Necessity,  dfc.) 

To  the  above  I  add  a  passage  from  a  divine  of  much  older  date,  who 
has  stated  the  argument  with  admirable  clearness : — 

In  answer  to  the  common  argument,  "  As  a  thing  is,  such  is  the 
knowledge  of  it :  future  contingencies  are  uncertain,  therefore  they  can- 
not be  known  as  certain,"  he  observes,  "  It  is  wonderful,  that  acute 
minds  should  not  have  detected  the  fallacy  of  this  paralogism.  For  the 
major,  which  is  vaunted  as  an  axiom  of  undoubted  truth,  is  most  false 
unless  it  be  properly  explained.  For  if  a  thing  is  evil,  shall  the  know- 
ledge of  it  be  evil  ?  Then  neither  God  nor  angels  could  know  the  sins 
of  men,  without  sinning  themselves  !  Again,  should  a  thing  be  neces- 
sary, will  the  knowledge  of  it,  on  that  account,  be  also  necessary  ?   But 


384  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

many  things  are  necessary  in  the  nature  of  things,  which  either  are 
unknown  to  us,  or  only  known  doubtfully.  Many  persons  doubt  even 
the  existence  of  God,  which  in  the  highest  sense  is  necessary,  so  far  are 
they  from  having  a  necessary  knowledge  of  him.  That  proposition, 
therefore,  is  only  true  in  this  sense,  that  our  knowledge  must  agree 
with  the  things  which  are  known,  and  that  we  know  them  as  they  are 
in  reality,  and  not  otherwise.  Thus  I  ought  to  think,  that  the  paper  on 
which  I  write  is  white  and  the  ink  black ;  for  if  I  fancy  the  ink  white, 
and  the  paper  black,  this  is  not  knowledge,  but  ignorance,  or  rather  de- 
ception. In  like  manner  true  knowledge  ought  to  regard  things  neces- 
sary as  necessary,  and  things  contingent  as  contingent :  but  it  requires 
not  that  necessary  things  should  be  known  necessarily,  and  contingent 
things  contingently  ;  for  the  contrary  often  happens. 

"  But  the  minor  of  the  above  syllogism  is  ambiguous  and  improper. 
The  things  about  which  our  minds  are  exercised,  are  in  themselves  nei- 
ther certain  nor  uncertain.  They  are  called  so  only  in  respect  of  him 
who  knows  them ;  but  they  themselves  are  necessary  or  contingent. 
But  if  you  understand  by  a  certain  thing,  a  necessary  one,  and  by  an 
uncertain  thing  that  which  is  contingent,  as  many  by  an  abuse  of  terms 
do,  then  your  minor  will  appear  to  be  identical  and  nugatory,  for  it  will 
stand,  '  Future  contingencies  are  contingent,'  from  which  no  conclusion 
can  be  drawn.  It  is  to  be  concluded,  that  certitude  and  incertitude  are 
not  affections  of  the  things  which  are  or  may  be  known,  but  of  the  intel- 
lect of  him  who  has  knowledge  of  them,  and  who  forms  different  judgments 
respecting  them.  For  one  and  the  same  thing,  without  any  change  in 
itself,  may  be  certain  and  uncertain  at  the  same  time ;  certain  indeed  to 
him  who  knows  it  certainly,  but  to  him  who  knows  it  not,  uncertain. 
For  example,  the  same  future  eclipse  of  the  sun  shall  be  certain  to  a 
skilful  astronomer  who  has  calculated  it :  uncertain  to  him  who  is 
ignorant  of  the  laws  of  the  heavenly  bodies.  But  that  cannot  be  said 
concerning  the  necessity  and  contingency  of  things.  They  remain  such 
as  they  are  in  their  own  nature,  whether  we  know  them  or  not ;  for  an 
eclipse,  which  from  the  laws  of  nature  must  necessarily  take  place,  is 
not  made  contingent  by  my  ignorance  and  uncertainty  whether  it  will  or 
will  not  happen.  For  this  reason  they  are  mistaken  who  say  that  things 
determined  by  the  decree  of  God,  are  necessary  in  respect  of  God  ;  but 
that  to  us,  who  know  not  his  decrees,  they  are  contingent ;  for  our  igno- 
rance cannot  make  that  which  is  future  and  necessary,  because  God  hath 
decreed  it,  change  its  nature,  and  become  contingent.  It  is  no  contra- 
diction indeed  to  say,  that  one  and  the  same  thing  may  be  at  once  neces- 
sary and  yet  uncertain,  but  that  it  should  be  necessary  and  contingent  is 
a  manifest  contradiction.  To  God,  therefore,  whose  knowledge  is  infi- 
nite, future  contingencies  are  indeed  certain,  but  to  angels  and  men 
uncertain  ;  nor  are  they  made  necessary  because  God  knows  them  cer- 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  385 

tainly.  The  knowledge  of  God  influences  nothing  extrinsically,  nor 
changes  the  nature  of  things  in  any  wise.  He  knows  future  nccessan 
things  as  necessary,  but  contingencies  as  contingencies ;  otherwise  he 
would  not  know  them  truly,  but  be  deceived,  which  cannot  happen 
to  God."   (Curcelleeus,  De  Jure  Dei,  1645.) 

The  rudiments  of  the  third  theory  which  this  controversy  has  called 
forth,  may  be  found  in  many  theological  writers,  ancient  and  modern ; 
but  it  is  stated  at  large  in  the  writings  of  Archbishop  King,  and  requires 
some  notice,  because  the  views  of  that  writer  have  of  late  been  again  made 
a  subject  of  controversy.  They  amount,  in  brief,  to  this,  that  the  fore- 
knowledge of  God  must  be  supposed  to  differ  so  much  from  any  thing  cf 
the  kind  we  perceive  in  ourselves,  and  from  any  ideas  which  we  can 
possibly  form  of  that  property  of  the  Divine  nature,  that  no  argument 
respecting  it  can  be  grounded  upon  our  imperfect  notions  ;  and  that,  all . 
controversy  on  subjects  connected  with  it  is  idle  and  fruitless. 

In  establishing  this  view,  Archbishop  King,  in  his  Sermon  on  Divine 
Predestination  and  Foreknowledge,  has  the  following  observations  :- — 

"  It  is  in  effect  agreed  on  all  hands,  that  the  nature  of  God  is  incom- 
prehensible by  human  understanding  ;  and  not  only  his  nature,  but  like- 
wise his  powers  and  faculties,  and  the  ways  and  methods  in  which  he 
exercises  them,  are  so  far  beyond  our  reach,  that  we  are  utterly  incapa- 
ble of  framing  exact  and  adequate  notions  of  them. 

"  We  ought  to  remember,  that  the  descriptions  which  we  frame  to 
ourselves  of  God,  or  of  the  Divine  attributes,  are  not  taken  from  any 
direct  or  immediate  perceptions  that  we  have  of  him  or  them  ;  but  from 
some  observations  we  have  made  of  his  works,  and  from  the  conskleration 
of  those  qualifications,  that  we  conceive  would  enable  us  to  perform  the 
like. 

"  It  doth  truly  follow  from  hence,  that  God  must  either  have  these,  or 
other  faculties  equivalent  to  them,  and  adequate  to  these  mighty  effects 
which  proceed  from  them.  And  because  we  do  not  know  what  his 
faculties  are  in  themselves,  we  give  them  the  names  of  those  powers, 
that  we  find  would  be  necessary  to  us  in  order  to  produce  such 
effects,  and  call  them  wisdom,  understanding,  and  foreknowledge  ;  yet 
at  the  same  time  we  cannot  but  be  sensible,  that  they  are  of  a  nature  alto- 
gether different  from  ours,  and  that  we  have  no  direct  and  proper  notion 
or  conception  of  them.  Only  we  are  sure,  that  they  have  effects  like  unto 
those  that  proceed  from  wisdom,  understanding,  and  foreknowledge  in 
us ;  and  that  when  our  works  fail  to  resemble  them  in  any  particular,  it 
is  by  reason  of  some  defect  in  these  qualifications. 

"  Thus  our  reason  teaches  us  to  ascribe  these  attributes  to  God,  by 
way  of  analogy  to  such  qualities  as  we  find  most  valuable  in  ourselves. 

"  If  we  look  into  the  Holy  Scriptures,  and  consider  the  representations 
given  us  there  of  God  or  his  attributes,  we  shall  find  them  plainly  bor- 

Vol.  I.  25 


386  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

rowed  from  some  resemblance  to  things,  with  which  we  are  acquainted 
by  our  senses.  Thus  when  the  Holy  Scriptures  speak  of  God,  they 
ascribe  hands,  and  eyes,  and  feet  to  him  :  not  that  we  should  believe  he 
has  any  of  these  members,  according  to  the  literal  signification  ;  but  the 
meaning  is,  that  he  has  a  power  to  execute  all  those  acts,  to  the  effect- 
Log  of  which  these  parts  in  us  are  instrumental :  that  is,  he  can  converse 
with  men,  as  well  as  if  he  had  a  tongue  and  mouth;  he  can  discern  all 
that  we  do  or  say,  as  perfectly  as  if  he  had  eyes  and  ears ;  he  can  reach 
us  as  well  as  if  he  had  hands  and  feet ;  he  has  as  true  and  substantial  a 
being  as  if  he  had  a  body ;  and  he  is  as  truly  present  every  where,  as 
if  that  body  were  infinitely  extended. 

"  After  the  same  manner,  we  find  him  represented  as  affected  with  such 
passions  as  we  perceive  to  be  in  ourselves,  namely,  as  angry  and  pleased, 
as  loving  and  hating,  as  repenting  and  changing  his  resolutions,  as  full 
of  mercy  and  provoked  to  revenge.  And  yet  on  reflection  we  cannot 
think,  that  any  of  these  passions  literally  affect  the  Divine  nature. 

"  And  as  the  passions  of  men  are  thus  by  analogy  ascribed  to  God, 
because  these  would  in  us  be  the  principles  of  such  outward  actions,  as 
we  see  he  has  performed  ;  so  by  the  same  condescension  to  the  weakness 
of  our  capacities,  we  find  the  powers  and  operations  of  our  minds 
ascribed  to  him. 

"  The  use  of  foreknowledge  with  us  is  to  prevent  any  surprise  when 
events  happen,  and  that  we  may  not  be  at  a  loss  what  to  do  by  things 
coming  upon  us  unawares.  Now  inasmuch  as  we  are  certain  that 
nothing  can  surprise  God,  and  that  he  can  never  be  at  a  loss  what  to  do  ; 
we  conclude  that  God  has  a  faculty  to  which  our  foreknowledge  bears 
some  analogy,  therefore  we  call  it  by  that  name. 

"  But  it  does  not  follow  from  hence  that  any  of  these  are  literally  in 
God,  after  the  manner  they  are  in  us,  any  more  than  hands  or  eyes,  than 
love  or  hatred  are  ;  on  the  contrary  we  must  acknowledge,  that  those 
things,  which  we  call  by  these  names,  when  attributed  to  God,  are  of  so 
very  different  a  nature  from  what  they  are  in  us,  and  so  superior  to  all 
that  we  can  conceive,  that  in  reality  there  is  no  more  likeness  between 
them,  than  between  our  hand  and  God's  power.  Nor  can  we  draw  con- 
sequences  from  the  real  nature  of  one  to  that  of  the  other,  with  more 
justness  of  reason,  than  we  can  conclude,  because  our  hand  consists  of 
fingers  and  joints,  therefore  the  power  of  God  is  distinguished  by  such 
parts. 

"  So  that  to  argue,  '  because  foreknowledge,  as  it  is  in  us,  if  supposed 
infallible,  cannot  consist  with  the  contingency  of  events,  therefore  what 
we  call  so  in  God  cannot,'  is  as  far  from  reason,  as  it  would  be  to  con- 
clude, because  our  eyes  cannot  see  in  the  dark,  therefore  when  God  is 
said  to  see  all  things,  his  eyes  must  be  enlightened  with  a  perpetual  sun- 
shine ;  or  because  we  cannot  love  or  hate  without  passion,  therefore 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  387 

when  the  Scriptures  ascribe  these  to  God,  they  teach  us  that  he  is  liable 
to  these  affections  as  we  are. 

"  We  ought,  therefore,  to  interpret  all  these  things,  when  attributed  to 
God  only  by  way  of  condescension  to  our  capacities,  in  order  to  help 
us  to  conceive  what  we  are  to  expect  from  him,  and  what  duty  we  are 
to  pay  bim.  Particularly,  the  terms  of  foreknowledge,  predestination, 
nay,  of  understanding  and  will,  when  ascribed  to  him,  are  not  to  be  taken 
strictly  or  properly,  nor  are  we  to  think  that  they  are  in  him  in  the 
same  .sense,  that  we  find  them  in  ourselves ;  on  the  contrary,  we  are  to 
interpret  thern  only  by  way  of  analogy  and  comparison." 

These  views  have  recently  been  advocated  by  Dr.  Copleston,  in  his 
"  Inquiry  into  the  Doctrines  of  Necessity  and  Predestination ;"  but,  to  this 
theory,  the  first  objection  is,  that,  like  the  former,  it  does  not  in  the  least 
relieve  the  difficulty,  for  the  entire  subduing  of  which  it  was  adopted. 
-  For  though  foreknowledge  in  God  should  be  admitted  to  be  something 
of  a  "  very  different  nature"  to  the  same  quality  in  man,  yet  as  it  is 
represented  as  something  equivalent  to  foreknowledge,  whatever  that 
something  may  be ;  as,  in  consequence  of  it,  prophecies  have  actually 
been  uttered  and  fulfilled,  and  of  such  a  kind,  too,  as  relate  to  actions 
for  which  men  have  in  fact  been  held  accountable  ;  all  the  original  diffi- 
culty of  reconciling  contingent  events  to  this  something,  of  which  human 
foreknowledge  is  a  "  kind  of  shadow,"  as  "  a  map  of  China  is  to  China 
itself,"  remains  in  full  force.  The  difficulty  is  shifted,  but  not  removed  ; 
it  cannot  even  be  with  more  facility  slided  past ;  and  either  the  Christian 
world  must  be  content  to  forego  all  inquiries  into  these  subjects, — a 
consummation  not  to  be  expected,  however  it  may  be  wished, — or  the 
contest  must  be  resumed  on  another  field,  with  no  advantage  from  better 
ground  or  from  broader  daylight. 

A  farther  objection  to  these  notions  is,  that  they  are  dangerous. 

For  i( it  be  true,  that  the  faculties  we  ascribe  to  God  are  "of  a  nature 
altogether  different  from  our  own,  and  that  we  have  no  direct  and  proper 
notion  or  conceptioTi  of  them,"  then,  in  point  of  fact,  wre  have  no  proper 
revelation  at  all  of  the  nature  of  God,  and  of  his  attributes,  in  the  Scrip, 
tures  ;  and  what  we  esteem  to  be  such,  is  a  revelation  of  terms,  to  which 
we  can  attach  no  "proper  ?lotion.,,  If  this  conclusion  be  well  founded, 
then  it  is  so  monstrous  that  the  premises  on  which  it  hangs  must  be 
unsound  and  anti-Scriptural.  This  alone  is  a  sufficient  general  refuta- 
tion of  the  hypothesis  :  but  a  more  particular  examination  will  show  that 
it  rests  upon  false  assumptions ;  and  that  it  introduces  gratuitous  diffi- 
culties, not  called  for  by  the  supposed  difficulty  of  reconciling  the  fore- 
knowledge of  God  with  the  freedom  of  human  actions. 

1.  It  is  assumed  that  the  descriptions  which  we  frame  to  ourselves 
of  God,  are  taken  from  the  observations  we  have  made  on  his  works, 
jmd  from  the  consciousness  of  those  qualifications  which,  we  conceive, 


388  THEOLOGICAL     INSTITUTES.  LPART 

would  enable  us  to  perform  the  like.  This  might  be,  in  part,  true  of 
heathens  left  without  the  light  of  revelation ;  but  it  is  not  true  of  those 
who  enjoy  that  advantage.  Our  knowledge  of  God  comes  from  the 
Scriptures,  which  are  taught  to  us  in  our  infancy,  and  with  which, 
either  by  reading  or  hearing,  we  become  familiar  as  we  grow  up.  The 
notions  we  have  of  God,  so  far  as  they  agree  with  the  Scriptures,  are, 
therefore,  not  those  which  we  have  framed  by  the  process  assumed  by 
the  archbishop,  but  those  which  have  been  declared  to  us  in  the  Scrip 
tures  by  God  himself,  as  descriptions  of  his  own  nature.  This  makes 
a  great  difference.  Our  own  modes  of  forming  conceptions  of  the 
Divine  nature  would  have  no  authority  higher  than  ourselves ;  the 
announcements  of  Scripture  are  the  word  of  God,  communicating  by 
human  language  the  truth  and  reality  of  things,  as  to  himself.  This  is 
the  constant  profession  of  the  sacred  writers  ;  they  tell  us,  not  what  there 
is  in  man  which  may  support  an  analogy  between  man  and  God,  but 
what  God  is  in  himself. 

2.  It  is  assumed,  that  because  the  nature  of  God  is  "  incomprehensi- 
ble" we  have  no  "  proper  notion  or  conception  of  it."  The  term  "  proper 
notion"  is  vague.  It  may  mean  "  an  exact  and  adequate  notion,"  which 
it  may  be  granted  without  hesitation  that  we  have  not ;  or  it  may  mean 
a  notion  correct  and  true  in  itself,  though  not  complete  and  comprehen- 
sive. A  great  part  of  the  fallacy  lies  here.  To  be  incomprehensible,  is 
not,  in  every  case,  and  assuredly  not  in  this,  to  be  unintelligible.  We 
may  know  God,  though  we  cannot  fully  know  him ;  and  our  notions 
may  be  true,  though  not  adequate ;  and  they  must  be  true,  if  we  have 
rightly  understood  God's  revelation  of  himself.  Of  being,  for  instance, 
we  can  form  a  true  notion,  because  we  are  conscious  of  our  own 
existence ;  and  though  we  cannot  extend  the  conception  to  absolute 
being  or  self  existence,  because  our  being  is  a  dependent  one,  we  can 
yet  supply  the  defect,  as  we  are  taught  by  the  Scriptures,  by  the  nega- 
tive notion  of  independence.  Of  spirit  we  have  a  true  notion,  and 
understand,  therefore,  what  is  meant,  when  it  is  said,  that  "  God  is  a 
spirit ;"  and  though  we  can  have  but  an  imperfect  conception  of  an 
infinite  spirit,  we  can  supply  that  want  also,  to  all  practical  purposes, 
by  the  negative  process  of  removing  all  imperfection,  or  limit  of  excel- 
lence, from  our  views  of  the  Divine  nature.  We  have  a  true  notion  of 
the  presence  of  one  being  with  other  beings,  and  with  place ;  and 
though  we  cannot  comprehend  the  mode  in  which  God  is  omnipresent, 
we  are  able  to  conceive  without  difficulty  the  fact,  that  the  Divine  pre- 
sence fills  all  things.  We  have  true  notions  of  power  and  knowledge  ; 
and  can  suppose  them  infinite,  though  how  they  should  be  so,  we  know 
not.  And  as  to  the  moral  attributes,  such  as  truth,  justice,  and  goodness, 
we  have  not  only  true,  but  comprehensive,  and  for  any  thing  that 
appears  to  the  contrary,  adequate  notions  of  them ;  for  our  difficulties 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  389 

as  to  these  attributes  do  not  arise  from  any  incapacity  to  conceive  of 
what  is  perfect  truth,  perfect  justice,  and  perfect  goodness,  but  from  our 
inability  to  show  how  many  things,  which  occur  in  the  Divine  govern- 
ment, are  to  be  reconciled  to  these  attributes ; — and  that,  not  because 
our  notions  of  the  attributes  themselves  are  obscure,  but  because 
the  things,  out  of  which  such  questions  arise,  are  either  in  themselves, 
or  in  their  relations,  but  partially  understood  or  greatly  mistaken. — 
Job  and  his  friends  did  not  differ  in  abstract  views  of  the  justice 
of  the  moral  government  of  God,  but  in  reconciling  Job's  afflictions 
with  it. 

3.  It  is  assumed  that  the  nature  of  God  is  essentially  different  from 
the  spiritual  nature  of  man.  This  is  not  the  doctrine  of  Scripture. — 
When  it  says,  that  "  God  is  a  spirit ;"  we  have  no  reason  to  conclude 
that  a  distant  analogy,  such  a  one  as  springs  out  of  mere  relation, 
which,  in  a  poetic  imagination,  might  be  sufficient  to  support  a  figure 
of  speech,  is  alone  intended.  The  very  argument  connected  with  these 
words,  in  the  discourse  of  our  Lord  with  the  woman  of  Samaria,  forbids 
this.  It  is  a  declaration  of  the  nature  of  God,  and  of  the  worship  suited 
to  his  nature  ;  and  the  word  employed  is  that  by  which  both  Jews  and 
Samaritans  had  been  taught  by  the  same  inspired  records,  which  they 
each  possessed,  to  designate  and  conceive  of  the  intellectual  nature  of 
man.  The  nature  of  God,  and  the  nature  of  man,  are  not  the  same ; 
but  they  are  similar,  because  they  bear  many  attributes  in  common, 
though  on  the  part  of  the  Divine  nature  in  a  degree  of  perfection 
infinitely  exceeding.  The  difference  of  degree,  however,  cannot  prove 
a  difference  of  essence, — no,  nor  the  circumstance  that  one  has  attributes 
which  the  other  has  not, — in  any  sense  of  the  word  difference  which 
could  be  of  service  to  the  advocates  of  this  hypothesis.  But  if  a  total 
difference  is  proved  as  to  the  intellectual  attributes  of  God  and  men,  that 
difference  must  be  extended  to  the  moral  attributes  also  ;  and  so  the  very 
foundation  of  morals  and  religion  would  be  undermined.  This  point 
was  successfully  pressed  by  Edwards  against  Archbishop  King,  and  it 
is  met  very  feebly  by  Dr.  Copleston.  "  Edwards,"  he  observes, 
"  raises  a  clamour  about  the  moral  attributes,  as  if  their  nature  also 
must  be  held  to  be  different  in  kind  from  human  virtues,  if  the  know- 
ledge of  God  be  admitted  to  be  different  in  kind  from  ours."  Certainly 
this  follows  from  the  principles  laid  down  by  Archbishop  King ;  and  if 
his  followers  take  his  conclusions  as  to  the  intellectual  attributes,  they 
must  take  them  as  to  the  moral  attributes  also.  If  the  faculties  of  God 
be  "  of  a  nature  altogether  different  from  ours,"  we  have  no  more  reason 
to  except  from  this  rule  the  truth  and  the  justice,  than  the  wisdom  and 
the  prescience  of  God  ;  and  the  reasoning  of  Archbishop  King  is  as  con- 
clusive in  the  one  case  as  in  the  other. 

The  fallacy  of  the  above  assumptions  is  sufficient  to  destroy  the  hypo 


390  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

thesis  which  has  been  built  upon  them ;  and  the  argument  from  Scrip- 
ture may  be  shown  to  be  as  unfounded.  It  is,  as  the  above  extract 
will  show,  in  brief  this,  that  as  the  Scriptures  ascribe,  by  analogy,  hands, 
and  eyes,  and  feet  to  God,  and  also  the  passions  of  love,  hatred,  angei, 
<Stc,  "  because  these  would  be  in  us  the  principles  of  such  outward 
actions  as  we  see  he  has  performed ;  so,  by  the  same  condescension, 
to  the  weakness  of  our  capacities,  we  find  the  powers  and  operations  of 
our  minds  ascribed  to  him."  But  will  the  advocates  of  this  opinion 
look  steadily  to  its  legitimate  consequences  ?  We  believe  not ;  and 
those  consequences  must,  therefore,  be  its  total  refutation.  For  if  both 
our  intellectual  and  moral  affections  are  made  use  of  but  as  distant  ana- 
logies, and  obscure  intimations,  to  convey  to  us  an  imperfect  knowledge 
of  the  intellectual  powers  and  affections  of  the  Divine  nature,  in  the 
same  manner  as  human  hands,  and  human  eyes,  are  made  to  represent 
his  power  and  his  knowledge, — it  follows  that  there  is  nothing  in  the 
Divine  nature  which  answers  more  truly  and  exactly  to  knowledge, 
iustice,  truth,  mercy,  and  other  qualities  in  man,  than  the  knowledge  of 
God  answers  to  human  organs  of  vision,  or  his  power  to  the  hands  or 
the  feet ;  and  from  this  it  would  follow,  that  nothing  is  said  in  the 
Scriptures  of  the  Divine  Being,  but  what  is,  in  the  highest  sense,  figura- 
tive, and  purely  metaphorical.  We  are  no  more  like  God  in  our  minds 
than  in  our  bodies,  and  it  might  as  truly  have  been  said  with  respect  to 
man's  bodily  shape,  as  to  his  mental  faculties,  that  man  was  made  "  in 
the  image  of  God."  (6) 

(6)  "  Though  his  grace  rightly  lays  down  analogy  for  the  foundation  of  his 
discourse,  yet,  for  want  of  having  thoroughly  weighed  and  digested  it,  and  by 
wording  himself  incautiously,  he  seems  entirely  to  destroy  the  nature  of  it ; 
insomuch  that  while  he  rejects  the  strict  propriety  of  our  conceptions  and  words, 
on  the  one  hand,  he  appears  to  his  antagonists  to  run  into  an  extreme  even 
below  metaphor,  on  the  other. 

"  His  greatest  mistake  is,  that  through  his  discourse  he  supposes  the  members 
and  actions  of  a  human  body,  which  we  attribute  to  God  in  a  pure  metaphor,  to 
be  equally  upon  the  same  foot  of  analogy  with  the  passions  of  a  human  soul, 
which  are  attributed  to  him  in  a  lower  and  more  imperfect  degree  of  analogy ; 
and  even  with  the  operations  and  perfections  of  the  pure  mind  or  intellect 
which  are  attributed  to  him  in  a  yet  higher  and  more  complete  degree.  In 
pursuance  of  this  oversight,  he  expressly  asserts  love  and  anger,  wisdom 
and  goodness,  knowledge  and  foreknowledge,  and  all  the  other  Divine  attri- 
butes to  be  spoken  of  God,  as  improperly  as  eyes  or  cars  ;  that  there  is  no  more 
likeness  between  these  things  in  the  Divine  nature  and  in  ours,  than  there 
is  between  our  hand  and  God's  power,  and  that  they  are  not  to  be  taken  in  the 
same  sense. 

"  Agreeably  to  this  incautious  and  indistinct  manner  of  treating  a  subject 
curioua  and  difficult,  he  hath  unwarily  dropped  some  such  shocking  expressions 
as  these,  the  best  representations  we  can  make  of  God  are  infinitely  short  of  truth. 
Which  God  forbid,  in  the  sense  his  adversaries  take  it ;  for  then  all  our  reason, 
ings  concerning  him  would  be  groundless  and  false.     But  the  saying  is  evidently 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  391 

It  is  also  to  be  observed,  tbat  when  the  Scriptures  speak  of  the 
knowledge,  power,  and  other  attributes  of  God,  in  figurative  language, 
taken  from  the  eyes  or  hands  of  the  body,  it  is  sufficiently  obvious  that 
this  language  is  metaphorical,  not  only  from  the  reason  of  things  itself, 
but  because  the  same  ideas  are  also  quite  as  often  expressed  without 
figure ;  and  the  metaphor  therefore  never  misleads  us.  We  have 
sufficient  proof  also  that  it  never  did  mislead  the  Jews,  even  in  the 
worst  periods  of  their  history,  and  when  their  tendency  to  idolatry  and 
gross  superstition  was  most  powerful.  They  made  images  in  human 
shape  of  other  gods ;  but  never  of  Jehovah  :  the  Jews  were  never 
anthropomorphkes,  whatever  they  might  be  beside.  But  it  is  equally 
certain,  that  they  did  give  a  literal  interpretation  to  those  passages  in 
their  Scriptures  which  speak  of  the  knowledge,  justice,  mercy,  &c,  of 
God,  as  the  same  in  kind,  though  infinitely  higher  in  their  degree 
of  excellence,  with  the  same  qualities  in  men.  The  reason  is  obvious : 
they  could  not  interpret  those  passages  of  their  holy  writings  which 
speak  of  the  hands,  the  eyes,  and  the  feet  of  God  literally ;  because 
every  part  of  the  same  sacred  revelation  was  full  of  representations  of 
the  Divine  nature,  which  declared  his  absolute  spirituality  :  and  they 
could  not  interpret  those  passages  figuratively  which  speak  of  the  intel- 
lectual and  moral  qualities  of  God  in  terms  that  express  the  same  qua- 
lities in  men  ;  because  their  whole  revelation  did  not  furnish  them  with 
any  hint,  even  the  most  distant,  that  there  was  a  more  literal  or  exact 
sense  in  which  they  could  be  taken.  It  was  not  possible  for  any  man 
to  take  literally  that  sublimely  figurative  representation  of  the  upholding 
and  ruling  power  of  God,  where  he  is  said  to  "  hold  the  waters  of  the 
ocean  in  the  hollow  of  his  hand,"  unless  he  could  also  conclude  that 
where  he  is  said  to  "  weigh  the  hills  in  scales,  and  the  mountains  in  ^ 
balance,"  he  was  to  understand  this  literally  also.  The  idea  suggested 
is  that  of  sustaining,  regulating,  and  adjusting  power ;  but  if  he  were 
told,  that  he  ought  to  take  the  idea  of  power  in  as  figurative  a  sense  as 
that  of  the  waters  being  held  in  the  hollow  of  the  hand  of  God,  and  his 
weighing  the  mountains  in  scales,  he  would  find  it  impossible  to  form 
any  idea  of  the  thing  signified  at  all.  The  first  step  in  the  attempt 
would  plunge  him  into  total  darkness.     The  figurative  hand  assists  him 

true  in  a  favourable  and  qualified  sense  and  meaning ;  namely,  that  they  are 
infinitely  short  of  the  real,  true,  internal  nature  of  God  as  he  is  in  himself. — 
Again,  that  they  are  emblems  indeed  and  parabolical  figures  of  the  Divine  attri- 
butes, which  they  are  designed  to  signify ;  as  if  they  were  signs  or  figures  of  our 
own,  altogether  precarious  and  arbitrary,  and  without  any  real  and  true  foun- 
dation of  analogy  between  them  in  the  nature  of  either  God  or  man  :  and 
accordingly  he  unhappily  describes  the  knowledge  we  have  of  God  and  his 
attributes,  by  the  notion  we  form  of  a  strange  country  by  a  map,  which  is  only 
paper  and  ink,  strokes  and  lines."  (Bishop  Brown's  Procedure  of  Human  Under 
standing.) 


392  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

to  form  the  idea  of  managing  and  controlling  power,  but  the  figurative 
power  suggests  nothing ;  and  so  this  scheme  blots  out  entirely  all  reve- 
lation of  God  of  any  kind,  by  resolving  the  whole  into  figures,  which 
represent  nothing  of  which  we  can  form  any  conception. 

The  argument  of  Archbishop  King,  from  the  passions  which  are 
ascribed  to  God  in  Scripture,  is  not  more  conclusive.  "  After  the  same 
manner  we  find  him  represented  as  affected  with  such  passions  as  we 
perceive  to  be  in  ourselves,  as  angry  and  pleased,  as  loving  and  hating, 
as  repenting  and  changing  his  resolutions,  as  full  of  mercy,  and  pro- 
voked to  revenge  ;  and  yet,  on  reflection,  we  cannot  think  that  any  of 
these  passions  literally  affect  the  Divine  nature."  But  why  not?  As 
they  are  represented  in  Scripture  to  be  affections  of  the  Divine  nature, 
and  not  in  the  gross  manner  in  which  they  are  expressed  in  this  extract, 
there  seems  nothing  improper  in  taking  them  literally ;  and  no  neces- 
sity is  made  out  to  compel  us  to  understand  them  to  signify  somewhat  for 
which  we  have  not  a  name,  and  of  which  we  can  form  no  idea.  The 
Scriptures  nowhere  warrant  us  to  consider  God  as  a  cold  metaphysical 
abstraction ;  and  they  nowhere  indicate  to  us  that  when  they  ascribe 
affections  to  him,  they  are  to  be  taken  as  mere  figures  of  speech.  On 
the  contrary,  they  teach  us  to  consider  them  as  answering  substantially, 
though  not  circumstantially  to  the  innocent  affections  of  men  and  angels. 
Why  may  not  anger  be  "  literally"  ascribed  to  God,  not  indeed  as  it 
may  be  caricatured  to  suit  a  theory,  but  as  we  find  it  ascribed  in  the 
Scriptures  ?  It  is  not  malignant  anger,  nor  blind,  stormy,  and  disturb- 
ing anger,  which  is  spoken  of;  nor  is  this  always,  nor  need  it  be  at  any 
time,  the  anger  of  creatures.  There  is  an  anger  which  is  without  sin 
in  man, — "  a  perception  of  evil,  and  opposition  to  it,  and  also  an  emotion 
of  mind,  a  sensation,  or  passion,  suitable  thereto."  {Wesley.)  There 
was  this  in  our  Lord,  who  was  without  sin ;  nor  is  it  represented  by 
the  evangelists,  who  give  us  the  instances,  as  even  an  infirmity  of  the 
nature  He  assumed.  In  God  it  may  be  allowed  to  exist  in  a  different 
manner  to  that  in  which  it  is  found  even  in  men  who  are  M  angry  and 
sill  not ;"  it  is  accompanied  with  no  weakness,  it  is  allied  to  no  imper- 
fection ;  but  that  it  does  exist  as  truly  in  him  as  in  man,  is  the  doctrine  of 
Scripture  ;  and  there  is  no  perfection  ascribed  to  God,  to  which  it  can 
be  proved  contrary,  or  with  which  we  cannot  conceive  it  to  coexist.  (7) 

(7)  Melancthon  says :  "  The  Lord  was  very  angry  with  Aaron  to  have  destroy- 
ed him ;  and  I  [Moses]  prayed  for  Aaron  also  at  the  same  time,  Deut.  ix,  20.  Let 
us  not  elude  the  exceedingly  lamentable  expressions  which  the  Holy  Ghost  em- 
ploys when  he  says,  God  was  very  angry  ;  and  let  us  not  feign  to  ourselves  a  God 
of  atone,  or  a  Stoical  Deity.  For  though  God  is  angry  in  a  different  manner  from 
men,  yet  let  us  conclude  that  God  was  really  angry  with  Aaron,  and  that  Aaron 
was  not  then  in  [a  state  of]  grace,  but  obnoxious  to  everlasting  punishment. 
Dreadful  was  the  fall  of  Aaron,  who  had  through  fear  yielded  to  the  wiadness  of 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  393 

Not  only  anger,  we  are  told,  is  ascribed  to  God,  but  "  the  being  pleased." 
Let  the  term  used  be  complacency,  instead  of  one  which  seems  to  have 
been  selected  to  convey  a  notion  of  a  lower  and  less  worthy  kind ;  and 
there  is  no  incongruity  in  the  idea.  Hb  is  the  blessed  or  happy  God, 
and  therefore  capable  of  pleasure.  He  looked  upon  his  works,  and  saw 
that  they  were  "  good,"  "  very  good," — words  which  suggest  the  idea 
of  his  complacency  upon  their  completion ;  and  this,  when  separated 
from  all  connection  with  human  infirmity,  appears  to  be  a  perfection, 
and  not  a  defect.  To  be  incapable  of  complacency  and  delight,  is  the 
character  of  the  Supreme  Being  of  Epicurus  and  of  the  modern  Hin- 
doos, of  whose  internal  stale,  so  to  speak,  deep  sleep,  and  the  surface 
of  an  unruffled  lake,  are  favourite  figurative  representations.  But  of  this 
refinement  we  have  nothing  in  the  Bible,  nor  is  it  in  the  least  neces- 
sary to  our  idea  of  infinite  perfection.  And  why  should  not  love  exist 
in  God,  in  more  than  a  figurative  sense  ?  For  this  affection  to  be  ac- 
companied with  perturbation,  anxiety,  and  weak  or  irrational  partiality,  is 
a  mere  accident.  So  we  often  see  it  in  human  beings ;  but  though  this 
affection,  without  any  concurrent  infirmity,  be  ascribed  to  God,  it  surely 
does  not  follow  that  it  exists  in  him,  as  something  in  nature  H  wholly 
different"  from  love  in  wise  and  holy  creatures,  in  angels  and  in  saints. 
Not  only  the  beauty,  the  force,  and  the  encouragement  of  a  thou- 
sand passages  of  Scripture  would  be  lost,  upon  this  hypothesis  ;  but 
their  meaning  also.  Love  in  God  is  something,  we  are  told,  which  is  so 
called,  because  it  produces  similar  effects  to  those  which  are  produced 
by  love  in  man  ;  but  what  this  something  is,  we  are  not  informed ;  and 
the  revelation  of  Scripture  as  to  God,  is  thus  reduced  to  a  revelation 
of  his  acts  only,  but  not,  in  the  least,  of  the  principles  from  which  they 
flow.  (8) 

the  people  when  they  instituted  the  Egyptian  worship.  Being  warned  by  this 
example,  let  us  not  confirm  ourselves  in  security,  but  acknowledge  that  it  is 
possible  for  elect  and  renewed  persons  horribly  to  fall,"  &c.  (Loci  Prtzcipui 
Theologi,  1543.) 

(8)  "  It  would  destroy  the  confidence  of  prayer,  and  the  ardour  of  devotion, 
if  we  could  regard  the  Deity  as  subsisting  by  himself,  and  as  having  no  sympa- 
thies, but  mere  abstract  relations  to  the  whole  family  in  heaven  and  earth  ;  and 
I  look  upon  it  as  one  of  the  most  rational  and  philosophical  confutations  of  your 
system,  that  it  is  fitted  neither  for  the  theory  nor  the  practice  of  our  religion  ; 
and  that,  if  we  could  adopt  it,  we  must  henceforth  exchange  the  language  of 
Scripture  for  the  anthems  of  Epicurus  : — 

"  Omnis  enim  per  so  Divum  natura  necesse  est, 

Immortali  aevo  sum  ma  cum  pace  fruatur, 

Semota  ab  nostris  rebus,  sejunctaque  longe  ; 

Nam  privata  dolore  omni,  privata  periculis, 

Ipsa  suis  pollens  opibus,  nihil  indiga  nostri, 

Nee  bene  promeritis  capitur,  nee  tangitur  ira. 
"  It  i*in*direct  opposition  to  all  such  vain  and  skeptical  speculations,  that  Chris- 


394  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

The  same  observations  may  be  applied  to  "  mercy  ana  revenge?  by 
the  latter  of  which  the  archbishop  can  mean  nothing  more  than  judicial 
vengeance,  or  retribution,  though  an  equivocal  term  has  been  adopted, 
ad  captandum.  "  Repenting,  and  changing  his  resolutions,"  are  impro- 
perly placed  among  the  affections  ;  but,  freed  from  ideas  of  human  in- 
firmity,  they  may  be,  without  the  least  dishonour  to  the  fulness  of  the 
Divine  perfections,  ascribed  to  God  in  as  literal  a  sense  as  we  find  them 
stated  in  the  Scriptures.  They  there  clearly  signify  no  more  than  the 
change  which  takes  place  in  the  affections  of  God,  his  anger  or  his 
love,  as  men  turn  from  the  practice  of  righteousness,  or  repent  and  turn 
back  again  to  him ;  and  the  consequent  changes  in  his  dispensations 
toward  them  as  their  Governor  and  Lord.  This  is  the  Scriptural  doc- 
trine,  and  there  is  nothing  in  it  which  is  not  most  worthy  of  God,  though 
literally  interpreted ;  nothing  which  is  not  consistent  with  his  absolute 
immutability.  He  is  unchangeably  the  lover  and  the  rewarder  of  righteous- 
ness, unchangeably  the  hater  and  the  judge  of  iniquity ;  and  as  his  crea- 
tures are  righteous  or  wicked,  or  are  changed  from  the  one  state  to  the 
other,  they  become  the  objecLs  of  the  different  regards,  and  of  the  differ- 
ent administrations,  of  the  same  righteous  and  gracious  Sovereign,  who, 
by  these  very  changes,  shows  that  he  is  without  variableness,  or  shadow 
of  turning. 

If  then  there  is  no  reason  for  not  attributing  even  certain  affections 
of  the  human  mind  to  God,  when  connected  with  absolute  perfection  and 
excellence,  in  their  nature  and  in  their  exercise,  no  reason  certainly  can 
be  given  for  not  considering  his  intellectual  attributes,  represented,  as 
to  their  nature  though  not  as  to  their  degree,  by  terms  taken  from  the 
faculties  of  the  human  mind,  as  corresponding  with  our  own.  But  the 
matter  is  placed  beyond  all  doubt  by  the  appeal  which  is  so  often  made 
in  the  Bible  to  these  properties  in  man,  not  as  illustrations  only  of  some- 
thing distantly  and  indistinctly  analogous  to  properties  in  the  Divine 
nature,  but  as  representations  of  the  nature  and  reality  of  these  qualities 
in  the  Supreme  Being,  and  which  are,  therefore,  made  the  grounds  of 
argument,  the  basis  of  duty,  and  the  sources  of  consolation. 

With  respect  to  the  nature  of  God,  it  is  sufficient  to  refer  to  the  pas- 
sage before  mentioned, — "  God  is  a  Spirit  ; — where  the  argument  is, 
that  he  requires  not  a  ceremonial  but  a  spiritual  worship,  the  worship 
of  man's  spirit ;  because  he  himself  is  a  Spirit.  How  this  argument 
could  be  brought  out  on  Archbishop  King's  and  Dr.  Copleston's  theory, 
it  is  difficult  to  state.  It  would  be  something  of  this  kind  : — God  is  a 
Spirit  ;  that  is,  he  is  called  a  Spirit,  because  his  nature  is  analogous 
to  the  spiritual  nature  of  man  :  but  this  analogy  implies  no  similarity  of 

tianity  always  represents  and  speaks  of  the  Deity  as  participating,  so  far  as  in- 
finity and  perfection  may  participate,  in  those  feelings  and  affections  which  belong 
to  our  rational  natures."  (Grinfield's  Vindicia  Analogical) 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  i*95 

nature  :  it  is  a  mere  analogy  of  relation  ;  and  therefore,  though  we  have 
no  direct  and  proper  notion  of  the  nature  of  God,  yet,  because  he  is 
called  a  Spirit,  "  they  that  worship  him  must  worship  him  in  spirit  and 
in  truth."  This  is  indeed  far  from  being  an  intelligible,  and  it  is  still 
less  a  practical,  argument. 

With  respect  to  his  intellectual  attributes,  it  is  argued  in  Scripture, 
"  He  that  teacheth  man  knoicledge,  shall  not  he  know  ?"  Here  the 
knowledge  of  God  is  supposed  to  be  of  the  same  nature  as  the  know- 
ledge of  man.  This  is  the  sole  foundation  of  the  argument ;  which 
would  have  appeared  indescribably  obscure,  if,  according  to  Archbishop 
King's  hypothesis,  it  had  stood, — "  He  that  teacheth  man  knowledge, 
shall  he  not  have  somewhat  in  his  nature,  which,  because  it  gives  rise  to 
actions  similar  to  those  which  proceed  from  knowledge,  we  may  call 
knowledge,  but  of  which  we  have  no  direct  or  proper  notion  ?" 

With  respect  to  his  moral  attributes,  we  find  the  same  appeals, — 
"  Shall  not  the  Judge  of  the  whole  earth  do  right  ?"  Here  the  abstract 
term  rigid  is  undoubtedly  used  in  the  sense  commonly  received  among 
men,  and  is  supposed  to  be  comprehensible  by  them. — "  The  righteous 
Lord  loveth  righteousness."  The  righteousness  in  man  which  he  loveth, 
is,  clearly,  correspondent  in  its  kind  to  that  which  constitutes  him  emi- 
nently "  the  righteous  Lord." — Still  more  forcibly,  the  house  of  Israel 
is  called  upon  "  to  judge  between  him  and  his  vineyard  :"  he  conde- 
scends to  try  his  own  justice  by  the  notions  of  justice  which  prevail 
among  men  ;  in  which  there  could  be  no  meaning,  if  this  moral  quality 
were  not  in  God  and  in  man  of  the  same  kind. — "  Hear  now,  O  house 
of  Israel,  is  not  my  way  equal  f*  But  what  force  would  there  be  in  this 
challenge,  designed  to  silence  the  murmurs  of  a  people  under  correction, 
as  though  they  had  not  been  justly  dealt  with,  if  justice  among  men  had 
no  more  resemblance  to  justice  in  God  than  a  hand  to  power,  or  an  eye 
to  knowledge,  or  "  a  map  of  China  to  China  itself?"  The  appeal  is  to 
a  standard  common  to  both,  and  by  which  one  might  be  as  explicitly 
determined  as  the  other.  (9)     Finally,  the  ground  of  all  praise  and  ado. 

(9)  How  can  we  confess  God  to  be  just,  if  we  understand  it  not  ?  But  how  can 
we  understand  him  so,  but  by  the  measures  of  justice  ?  and  how  shall  we  know 
that,  if  there  be  two  justices,  one  that  we  know,  and  one  that  we  know  not,  one 
contrary  to  another  ?  If  they  be  contrary,  they  are  not  justice  ;  for  justice  can 
be  no  more  opposed  to  justice,  than  truth  to  truth  :  if  they  be  not  contrary,  then 
that  which  we  understand  to  be  just  in  us,  is  just  in  God  ;  and  that  which  is  just 
once,  is  just  for  ever  in  the  same  case  and  circumstances  :  and,  indeed,  how  is  it 
that  we  are  in  all  things  of  excellency  and  virtue  to  be  like  God,  and  to  be  meek 
like  Christ;  to  b'  humble  as  he  is  humble,  and  to  be  pure  like  God,  to  be  just  after 
his  example,  to  be  merciful  as  our  heavenly  Father  is  merciful  ?  If  there  is  but 
one  mercy,  and  one  justice,  and  one  meekness,  then  the  measure  of  these,  and  the 
reason,  is  eternally  the  same.  If  there  be  two,  either  they  are  not  essential  to  God, 
or  else  not  imitable  by  us :  and  then  how  can  we  glorify  God,  and  speak  honour 


3!)6  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  I  PART 

ration  of  God  for  works  of  mercy  and  judgment, — of  all  trust  in  God, 
on  account  of  his  faithfulness  and  truth, — and  of  all  imitation  of  God  in 
his  mercy  and  compassion, — is  laid  in  every  part  of  the  word  of  God,  not 
surely  in  this,  that  there  are  unknown  and  unapprehended  qualities  of 
some  kind  in  God,  which  lead  him  to  perform  actions  similar  to  those 
which  flow  from  justice,  truth  and  mercy  in  men  ;  but  in  the  considera- 
tion that  he  is  justice  itself,  truth  itself,  and  goodness  itself.  The  hypo- 
thesis is  therefore  contradicted  by  the  Scripture  ;  and  though  it  has  been 
assumed  in  favour  of  a  great  truth, — that  the  prescience  of  God  does  not 
destroy  the  liberty  of  man, — that  truth  needs  not  so  cumbrous  and  mis- 
chievous an  auxiliary.  Divine  foreknowledge  and  the  freedom  of  human 
agency  arc  compatible,  not  because  foreknowledge  in  God  is  a  figure  of 
speech,  or  something  different  in  kind  to  foreknowledge  in  man ;  but 
because  knowledge,  simply  considered,  whether  present,  past,  or  future, 
can  have  no  influence  upon  action  at  all,  and  cannot  therefore  change  a 
contingent  action  into  a  necessary  one. 

For,  after  all,  where  does  the  great  theological  difficulty  lie,  for  the 
evasion  of  which  so  much  is  to  be  sacrificed  ?  The  prescience,  coun- 
sels, and  plans  of  God,  are  prescience,  counsels,  and  plans,  which  re- 
spect free  agents,  as  far  as  men  are  concerned  ;  and  unless  we  superadd 
influence  to  necessitate,  or  plans  to  entice  irresistibly  and  to  entrap  in- 
evitably,  into  some  given  course  of  conduct,  there  is  clearly  no  incon- 
gruity between  these  and  human  freedom.  There  is  a  difficulty  in 
conceiving  how  foreknowledge  should  be  absolute,  as  there  is  a  difficulty 
in  conceiving  how  God's  present  knowledge  should  penetrate  the  heart 
of  man,  and  know  his  present  thoughts  :  but  neither  party  argues  from 
the  incomprehensibility  of  the  mode  to  the  impossibility  of  the  thing. 
The  great  difficulty  does  not  then  lie  here.  It  seems  to  be  planted 
precisely  in  this,  that  God  should  prohibit  many  things,  which  he  never- 
theless knows  will  occur,  and  in  the  prescience  of  which  he  regulates 
his  dispensations  to  bring  out  of  these  circumstances  various  results, 
which  he  makes  subservient  to  the  displays  of  his  mercy  and  his  jus- 
tice ;  and  particularly,  that  in  the  case  of  those  individuals  who,  he 
knows,  will  finally  perish,  he  exhorts,  warns,  invites,  and,  in  a  word, 
takes  active  and  influential  means  to  prevent  a  foreseen  result.  This 
forms  the  difficulty ;  because,  in  the  case  of  man,  the  prescience  of 
failure  would,  in  many  cases,  paralyze  all  effort, — whereas,  in  the  go-' 
vernment  of  God,  men  are  treated,  in  our  views,  with  as  much  intensity 
of  care  and  effort,  as  though  the  issue  of  things  was  entirely  unknown. 
But  if  the  perplexity  arises  from  this,  nothing  can  be  more  clear  than 

of  his  name,  and  exalt  his  justice,  and  magnify  his  truth,  and  sincerity,  and 
simplicity,  if  truth  and  simplicity,  and  justice,  and  mercy  in  him  is  not  that  thing 
which  we  understand,  and  which  we  are  to  imitate  ?"  &c.  (Bishop  Taylor's 
■  Ductor  Dubitantium.") 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  397 

that  the  question  is  not,  how  to  reconcile  God's  prescience  with  the 
freedom  of  man  ;  but  how  to  reconcile  the  conduct  of  God  toward  man, 
considered  as  a  free  agent,  with  his  own  prescience ;  how  to  assign  a 
congruity  to  warnings,  exhortations,  and  other  means  adopted  to  prevent 
destruction  as  to  individuals,  with  the  certain  foresight  of  that  terrible 
result.  In  this,  however,  no  moral  attribute  of  God  is  impugned.  On 
the  contrary,  mercy  requires  the  application  of  means  of  deliverance,  if 
man  be  under  a  dispensation  of  grace ;  and  justice  requires  it,  if  man  is 
to  be  judged  for  the  use  or  abuse  of  mercy.  The  difficulty  then  entirely 
resolves  itself  into  a  mere  matter  of  feeling,  which,  of  course, — as  we 
cannot  be  judges  of  a  nature  infinite  in  perfection,  though  similar  to 
what  is  excellent  in  our  own,  nor  of  proceedings  which,  in  the  unli- 
mited range  of  the  government  of  God,  may  have  connections  and 
bearings  beyond  all  our  comprehension, — we  cannot  reduce  to  a  human 
standard.  Is  it,  then,  to  adjust  a  mere  matter  of  feeling,  that  we  are  to 
make  these  outrageous  interpretations  of  the  word  of  God,  in  what  he 
hath  spoken  of  himself?  And  are  we  to  deny  that  we  have  no  "  proper 
or  direct  notion  of  God,"  because  we  cannot  find  him  out  to  perfection  ? 
This  difficulty,  which  we  ought  not  to  dare  to  try  by  human  standards, 
is  not  one  however,  we  again  remark,  which  arises  at  all  out  of  the 
relation  of  the  Divine  prescience  to  the  liberty  of  human  actions ;  and 
it  is  entirely  untouched  by  any  part  of  this-  controversy.  We  fall  into 
new  difficulties  through  these  speculations,  but  do  not  escape  the  true 
one.  If  the  freedom  of  man  is  denied,  the  moral  attributes  of  God  are 
impugned ;  and  the  difficulty,  as  a  matter  of  feeling,  is  heightened. 
Divine  prescience  cannot  be  denied,  because  the  prophetic  Scriptures 
have  determined  that  already ;  and  if  Archbishop  King's  interpretation 
of  foreknowledge  be  resorted  to,  the  something  substituted  for  prescience, 
and  equivalent  to  it,  comes  in,  to  bring  us  back,  in  a  fallacious  circle, 
to  the  point  from  which  we  started. 

It  may  therefore  be  certainly  concluded,  that  the  omniscience  of  God 
comprehends  his  certain  prescience  of  all  events  however  contingent ; 
and  if  any  thing  more  were  necessaiy  to  strengthen  the  argument  above 
given,  it  might  be  drawn  from  the  irrational,  and,  above  all,  the  unscrip- 
tural  consequences,  which  would  follow  from  the  denial  of  this  doctrine. 
These  are  forcibly  stated  by  President  Edwards : — 

"  It  would  follow  from  this  notion,  (namely,  that  the  Almighty  doth 
not  foreknow  what  will  be  the  result  of  future  contingencies,)  that  as 
God  is  liable  to  be  continually  repenting  what  he  has  done ;  so  he  must 
be  exposed  to  be  constantly  changing  his  mind  and  intentions  as  to  his 
future  conduct ;  altering  his  measures,  relinquishing  his  old  designs,  and 
forming  new  schemes  and  projections.  For  his  purposes,  even  as  to  the 
main  parts  of  his  scheme,  namely,  such  as  belong  to  the  state  of  his 
moral  kingdom,  must  be  always  liable  to  be  broken,  through  want  of 


398  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  fcPART 

foresight ;  and  he  must  be  continually  putting  his  system  to  rights,  as  it 
gets  out  of  order,  through  the  contingence  of  the  actions  ,of  moral 
agents  :  he  must  be  a  Being,  who,  instead  of  being  absolutely  immutable, 
must  necessarily  be  the  subject  of  infinitely  the  most  numerous  acts  of 
repentance,  and  changes  of  intention,  of  any  being  whatsoever  ;  for  this 
plain  reason,  that  his  vastly  extensive  charge  comprehends  an  infinitely 
greater  number  of  those  things  which  are  to  him  contingent  and  uncer- 
tain. In  such  a  situation  he  must  have  little  else  to  do,  but  to  mend 
broken  links  as  well  as  he  can,  and  be  rectifying  his  disjointed  frame 
and  disordered  movements,  in  the  best  manner  the  case  will  allow. 
The  supreme  Lord  of  all  things  must  needs  be  under  great  and  mise- 
rable disadvantages,  in  governing  the  world  which  he  has  made,  and  has 
the  care  of,  through  his  being  utterly  unable  to  find  out  things  of  chief 
importance,  which  hereafter  shall  befall  his  system ;  which,  if  he  did 
but  know,  he  might  make  seasonable  provision  for.  In  many  cases, 
there  may  be  very  great  necessity  that  he  should  make  provision,  in  the 
manner  of  his  ordering  and  disposing  things,  for  some  great  events 
which  are  to  happen,  of  vast  and  extensive  influence,  and  endless  conse- 
quence to  the  universe ;  which  he  may  see  afterward,  when  it  is  too 
late,  and  may  wish  in  vain  that  he  had  known  beforehand,  that  he  might 
have  ordered  his  affairs  accordingly.  And  it  is  in  the  power  of  man,  on 
these  principles,  by  his  devices,  purposes,  and  actions,  thus  to  disappoint 
God,  break  his  measures,  make  him  continually  to  change  his  mind, 
subject  him  to  vexation,  and  bring  him  into  confusion." 


CHAPTER  V. 

Attributes  of  God — Immutability,  Wisdom. 

Another  of  the  qualities  of  the  Divine  nature,  on  which  the  sacred 
writers  often  dwell,  is  his  unchangeableness.  This  is  indicated  in  his 
august  and  awful  title,  I  am.  All  other  beings  are  dependent  and  mu- 
table, and  thus  stand  in  striking  contrast  to  him  who  is  independent,  and 
therefore  capable  of  no  mutation.  "  Of  old  hast  thou  laid  the  foundation 
of  the  earth ;  and  the  heavens  are  the  work  of  thy  hands ;  they  shall 
perish ;  but  thou  shalt  endure, — yea,  all  of  them  shall  wax  old  like  a 
garment;  as  a  vesture  shalt  thou  change  them,  and  they  shall  be 
changed ;  but  thou  art  the  same,  and  thy  years  shall  have  no  end. — 
He  is  the  Father  of  lights,  with  whom  is  no  variableness,  neither  shadow 
of  turning. — His  counsel  standeth  fast  for  ever,  and  the  thoughts  of  his 
heart  to  all  generations. — His  mercy  endureth  for  ever. — His  right- 
eousness is  like  the  great  mountains,  firm  and  immovable. — I  am  the 
Lord,  I  change  not." 


BECOJVD.J  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  399 

Of  this  truth,  so  important  to  religion  and  to  morals,  there  are  many 
confirmations  from  subjects  constantly  open  to  observation.  The  general 
order  of  nature,  in  the  revolutions  of  the  heavenly  bodies ;  the  succes- 
sion of  seasons ;  the  laws  of  animal  and  vegetable  production  ;  and  the 
perpetuation  of  every  species  of  beings,  from  which,  if  there  be  occa- 
sional deviations,  they  prove  the  general  regularity  and  stability  of  this 
material  system,  or  they  would  cease  to  attract  attention.  The  ample 
universe,  therefore,  with  its  immense  aggregate  of  individual  beings  and 
classes  of  being,  displays  not  only  the  all-comprehending  and  pervading 
power  of  God ;  but,  as  it  remains  from  age  to  age  subject  to  the  same 
laws,  and  fulfilling  the  same  purposes,  it  is  a  visible  image  of  the  exist- 
ence of  a  being  of  steady  counsels,  free  from  caprice,  and  liable  to  no 
control.  The  moral  government  of  God  gives  its  evidence  also  to  the 
same  truth.  The  laws  under  which  we  are  now  placed,  are  the  same 
as  those  which  were  prescribed  to  the  earliest  generations  of  men. 
What  was  vice  then,  is  vice  now  ;  and  what  is  virtue  now,  was  then 
virtue.  Miseries  of  the  same  kind  and  degree  inflict  punishment  on  the 
iormer  ;  peace  and  blessedness,  as  formerly,  accompany  the  latter.  God 
has  manifested  his  will  to  men  by  successive  revelations,  the  patriarchal, 
the  Mosaic,  and  the  Christian,  and  those  distant  from  each  other  many 
ages  5  but  the  moral  principles  on  which  each  rests,  are  precisely  the 
same,  and  the  moral  ends  which  each  proposes.  Their  differences  are 
circumstantial,  varying  according  to  the  age  of  the  world,  the  condition 
of  mankind,  and  his  own  plans  of  infinite  wisdom  ;  but  the  identity  of 
their  spirit,  their  influence,  and  their  character,  shows  their  author  to  be 
an  unchangeable  being  of  holiness,  truth,  justice,  and  mercy.  Vicious 
men  have  now  the  same  reason  to  tremble  before  God,  as  in  former 
periods,  for  he  is  still  "  of  purer  eyes  than  to  behold  iniquity  ;"  and  the 
penitent  and  the  pious  have  the  same  ground  of  hope,  and  the  same  sure 
foundation  of  trust.  These  are  the  cautionary  and  the  cheering  moral 
uses  to  which  the  sacred  writers  constantly  apply  this  doctrine.  He  is 
"  the  Lord,  the  hope  of  their  fathers ;"  and  in  all  the  changes  and 
vicissitudes  of  life,  this  is  the  consolation  of  his  people,  that  he  will 
never  leave  them,  nor  forsake  them.  "  Though  the  mountains  depart, 
and  the  hills  be  removed,  yet  my  kindness  shall  not  depart  from  thee, 
nor  shall  the  covenant  of  my  peace  be  removed." 

It  is  true,  that  the  stability  of  the  Divine  operations,  and  counsels,  as 
indicated  by  the  laws  of  the  material  universe,  and  the  revelations  of  his 
will,  only  show  the  immutability  of  God  through  those  periods  within 
which  these  operations  and  dispensations  have  been  in  force ;  but  in 
Scripture  they  are  constantly  represented  as  the  results  of  an  immuta- 
bility which  arises  out  of  the  perfection  of  the  Divine  nature  itself,  and 
which  is  therefore  essential  to  it.  "  I  am  the  Lord,  I  change  not :"  he 
changes  not,  because  he  is  "the  Lord." — With  him  there  is  "  no  vari- 


400  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

ableness,  neither  shadow  of  turning ;"  because  he  is  "  the  Father  of 
lights"  the  source  and  fulness  of  all  light  and  perfection  whatever. 
Change  in  any  sense  which  implies  defect  and  infirmity,  and  therefore 
imperfection,  is  impossible  to  absolute  perfection ;  and  immutability  is 
therefore  essential  to  his  Godhead.  In  this  sense,  he  is  never  capable 
of  any  kind  of  change  whatever,  as  even  a  heathen  has  so  strongly 
expressed  it,  oudstfo-rs,  ou<5apw),  ou£afjt.w£  aXXoiwtfiv,  ouSsy.ia.v  svSs^stui. 
(Plato  in  Phced.)  For  "if  we  consider  the  nature  of  God,  that  he  is 
a  self-existent  and  independent  Being,  the  great  Creator  and  wise  Go- 
vernor of  all  things ;  that  he  is  a  spiritual  and  simple  being,  void  of  all 
parts  and  all  mixture,  that  can  induce  a  change  ;  that  he  is  a  sovereign 
and  uncontrollable  Being,  which  nothing  from  without  can  affect  or  work 
an  alteration  in  ;  that  he  is  an  eternal  being,  which  always  has,  and 
always  will  go  on  in  the  same  tenor  of  existence ;  an  omniscient  being, 
who,  knowing  all  things,  has  no  reason  to  act  contrary  to  his  first 
resolves  :  and,  in  all  respects,  a  most  perfect  being,  that  can  admit  of  no 
addition  or  diminution ;  we  cannot  but  believe,  that  both  in  his  essence, 
in  his  knowledge,  and  in  his  will  and  purposes,  he  must  of  necessity  be 
unchangeable.  To  suppose  him  otherwise,  is  to  suppose  him  an  imper- 
fect being :  for  if  he  change,  it  must  be  either  to  a  greater  perfection 
than  he  had  before,  or  to  a  less ;  if  to  a  greater  perfection,  then  was 
there  plainly  a  defect  in  him,  and  a  privation  of  something  better  than 
what  he  had,  or  was ;  then  again  was  he  not  always  the  best,  and  con- 
sequently not  always  God:  if  he  change  to  a  lesser  perfection,  then 
does  he  fall  into  a  defect  again ;  lose  a  perfection  he  was  possessed 
once  of,  and  so  ceasing  to  be  the  best  being,  cease  at  the  same  time  to 
be  God.  The  sovereign  perfection  of  the  Deity  therefore  is  an  invin- 
cible bar  against  all  mutability ;  for,  which  way  soever  we  suppose  him 
to  change,  his  supreme  excellency  is  nulled  or  impaired  by  it :  for  since 
in  all  changes,  there  is  something  from  which,  and  something  to  which, 
the  change  is  made,  a  loss  of  what  the  thing  had,  or  an  acquisition  of 
what  it  had  not,  it  must  follow,  that  if  God  change  to  the  better,  he  was 
not  perfect  before,  and  so  not  God ;  if  to  be  worse,  he  will  not  be  per- 
fect, and  so  no  longer  God,  after  the  change.  We  esteem  changeable- 
ness  in  men  either  an  imperfection  or  a  fault :  their  natural  changes, 
as  to  their  persons,  are  from  weakness  and  vanity  ;  their  moral  changes, 
as  to  their  inclinations  and  purposes,  are  from  ignorance  or  inconstancy, 
and  therefore  this  quality  is  no  way  compatible  with  the  glory  and 
attributes  of  God."  (Charnock.) 

In  his  being  and  perfections,  God  is  therefore  eternally  the  same. 
He  cannot  cease  to  be,  he  cannot  be  more  perfect  because  his  perfection 
is  absolute. ;  he  cannot  be  less  so,  because  he  is  independent  of  all  ex- 
ternal power,  and  has  no  internal  principle  of  decay.  We  are  not 
however  so  to  interpret  the  immutability  of  God,  as  though  his  operations 


SECOND.  I  THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES.  401 

admitted  no  change,  and  even  no  contrariety ;  or  that  has  mind  was 
incapable  of  different  regards  and  affections  toward  the  same  creatures 
under  different  circumstances.  He  creates  and  he  destroys  ;  he  wounds 
and  he  heals ;  he  works  and  ceases  from  his  works  ;  he  loves  and  hates  ; 
but  these,  as  being  under  the  direction  of  the  same  immutable  wisdom, 
holiness,  goodness,  and  justice,  are  the  proofs,  not  of  changing,  but  of 
unchanging  principles,  as  stated  in  the  preceding  chapter.  They  are 
perfections,  not  imperfections.  Variety  of  operation,  the  power  to  com- 
mence, and  cease  to  act,  show  the  liberty  of  his  nature ;  the  direction 
of  this  operation  to  wise  and  good  ends  shows  its  excellence.  Thus  in 
Scripture  language  "  he  repents"  of  threatened,  or  commenced  punish- 
ment, and  shows  mercy  ;  or  "  is  weary  of  forbearing"  with  the  obstinately 
guilty,  and  so  inflicts  vengeance.  Thus,  "  he  hates  the  evil  doer,"  and 
"  loveth  the  righteous."  That  love  too  may  be  lost,  "  if  the  righteous 
turn  away  from  his  righteousness ;"  and  that  hatred  may  be  averted, 
"  when  the  wicked  man  turneth  away  from  his  wickedness."  There  is 
a  sense  in  which  this  may  be  called  change  in  God,  but  it  is  not  the 
change  of  imperfection  and  defect.  It  argues  precisely  the  contrary. . 
If  when  "  the  righteous  man  turneth  away  from  his  righteousness," 
God's  love  to  him  were  unchangeable,  he  could  not  be  the  unchangeably, 
holy  God,  the  hater  of  iniquity ;  and  "  when  the  wicked  man  turneth. 
away  from  his  wickedness,"  and,  by  the  grace  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  be- 
comes a  new  creature,  if  he  did  not  become  the  object  of  God's  love, 
God  would  not  be  the  unchangeable  lover  of  righteousness.  By  these 
Scriptural  doctrines,  the  doctrine  of  the  Divine  immutability  is  not 
therefore  contradicted,  but  confirmed. 

Various  speculations,  however,  on  the  Divine  immutability  occur  in 
the  writings  of  divines  and  others,  which,  though  often  well  intended, 
ought  to  be  received  with  caution,  and  sometimes  even  rejected  as 
bewildering  or  pernicious.  Such  are  the  notions,  that  God  knows  every 
thing  by  intuition ;  that  there  is  no  succession  of  ideas  in  the  Divine 
mind ,  that  he  can  receive  no  new  idea ;  that  there  are  no  affections  in 
God,  for  to  suppose  that  would  suppose  that  he  is  capable  of  emotion ; 
that  if  there  are  affections  in  God,  as  love,  hatred,  &c,  they  always 
exist  in  the  same  degree,  or  else  he  would  suffer  change  :  for  these  and 
other  similar  speculations,  recourse  may  be  had  to  the  schoolmen,  and 
metaphysicians,  by  those  who  are  curious  in  such  subjects ;  but  the  im- 
pression of  the  Divine  character,  thus  represented,  will  be  found  very 
different  to  that  conveyed  by  those  inspired  writings  in  which  God  is  not 
spoken  of  by  men,  but  speaks  of  himself;  and  nothing  could  be  more 
easily  shown  than  that  most  of  these  notions  are  either  idle,  as  assuming 
that  we  know  more  of  God  than  is  revealed ;  or  such  as  tend  to  repre- 
sent  the  Divine  Being  as  rather  a  necessary,  than  a  free  agent,  and  his 
moral  perfections  as  resulting  from  a  blind  phvsical  necessity  of  nature, 
Vol.  1.  26 


402  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

more  than  from  an  essential  moral  excellence,  or,  finally,  as  unintelli- 
gible, or  absurd.  As  a  specimen  of  the  latter,  the  following  passages 
may  be  taken  from  a  work  in  some  repute.  The  arguments  are  drawn 
from  the  schoolmen,  and  though  broadly  given  by  the  author,  will  be 
found  more  or  less  to  tinge  the  remarks  on  the  immutability  of  God,  in 
the  most  current  systems  of  theology,  and  discourses  on  the  attributes : — 

"  His  knowledge  is  independent  upon  the  objects  known,  therefore 
whatever  changes  there  are  in  them,  there  is  none  in  him.  Things 
known  are  considered  either  as  past,  present,  or  to  come,  and  these  are 
not  known  by  us  in  the  same  way  ;  for  concerning  things  past  it  must  be 
said  that  we  once  knew  them ;  or  of  things  to  come,  that  we  shall 
know  them  hereafter ;  whereas  God,  with  one  view,  comprehends  all 
things  past  and  future,  as  though  they  were  present. 

"  If  God's  knowledge  were  not  unchangeable,  he  might  be  said  to  have 
different  thoughts  or  apprehensions  of  things  at  one  time,  from  what  he 
has  at  another,  which  would  argue  a  defect  of  wisdom.  And  indeed  a 
change  of  sentiments  implies  ignorance,  or  weakness  of  understanding  ; 
for  to  make  advances  in  knowledge,  supposes  a  degree  of  ignorance  : 
and  to  decline  therein  is  to  be  reduced  to  a  state  of  ignorance  :  now  it 
is  certain,  that  both  these  are  inconsistent  with  the  infinite  perfection 
of  the  Divine  mind ;  nor  can  any  such  defect  be  applied  to  him,  who 
is  called,  The  only  wise  God."  (Ridgley's  Body  of  Divinity.) 

In  thus  representing  the  knowledge  of  God  as  "  independent  of  the 
objects  known ;"  in  order  to  the  establishing  of  such  an  immutability 
of  knowledge,  as  is  not  only  not  inconsistent  with  the  perfection  of 
that  attribute,  but  without  which  it  could  not  be  perfect ;  and  in  deny- 
ing that  knowledge  in  God  has  any  respect  to  the  past,  present,  and 
future  of  things,  a  very  important  distinction  between  the  knowledge 
of  things  possible,  and  the  knowledge  of  things  actual,  both  of  which 
must  be  attributed  to  God,  is  strangely  overlooked. 

In  respect  of  possible  beings,  the  Divine  knowledge  has  no  relation  to 
time,  and  there  is  in  it  no  past,  no  future ;  he  knows  his  own  wisdom 
and  omnipotence,  and  that  is  knowing  every  thing  respecting  them. 
But  to  the  possible  existence  of  things,  we  must  now  add  actual  exist- 
ence ;  that  commenced  with  time,  or  time  with  that.  Here  then  is 
another  branch  of  the  Divine  knowledge,  the  knowledge  of  things 
actually  existing,  a  distinction  with  which  the  operations  of  our  own 
minds  make  us  familiar  ;  and  from  the  actual  existence  of  things  arise 
order  and  succession,  past,  present,  and  future,  not  only  in  the  things 
themselves,  but  in  the  Divine  knowledge  of  them  also  ;  for  as  there 
could  be  no  knowledge  of  things  in  the  Divine  mind  as  actually  existing, 
which  did  not  actually  exist,  for  that  would  be  falsehood,  not  truth,  so  if 
things  have  been  brought  into  actual  existence  in  succession,  the  know- 
ledge of  their  actual  existence  must  have  been  successive  also  ;  for  as 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES  403 

actual  existences  they  could  not  be  known  as  existing  before  they  were. 
The  actual  being  of  things  added  nothing  to  the  knowledge  of  the 
infinite  mind  as  to  their  powers  and  properties.  Those  he  knew  from 
himself,  the  source  of  all  being,  for  they  all  depended  upon  his  will, 
power,  and  wisdom.  There  was  no  need,  for  instance,  to  set  the 
mechanism  of  this  universe  in  motion,  that  he  might  know  how  it  would 
play,  what  properties  it  would  exhibit,  what  would  be  its  results  ;  but  the 
knowledge  of  the  universe,  as  a  congeries  of  beings  in  ideal,  or  possible 
existence,  was  not  the  knowledge  of  it  as  a  real  existence ;  that,  as  far 
as  we  can  see,  was  only  possible  when  "  he  spake  and  it  was  done,  when 
he  commanded  and  it  stood  fast :"  the  knowledge  of  the  actual  existence 
of  things  with  God  is  therefore  successive,  because  things  come  into 
being  in  succession,  and,  as  to  actual  existences,  there  is  foreknowledge, 
present  knowledge,  and  after  knowledge,  with  God  as  well  as  with  our- 
selves. 

But  not  only  is  a  distinction  to  be  made  between  the  knowledge  of  God 
as  to  things  possibly,  and  things  actually  existing  ;  but  also  between  his 
knowledge  of  all  possible  things,  and  of  those  things  to  which  he  deter- 
mined before  their  creation  to  give  actual  existence.  To  deny  that  in 
the  Divine  mind  any  distinction  existed  between  the  apprehension  of 
things  which  would  remain  possible  only,  and  things  which  in  their  time 
were  to  come  into  actual  being,  would  be  a  bold  denial  of  the  perfect 
knowledge  of  God. 

Here  however  it  is  intimated,  that  this  makes  the  knowledge  of  God 
to  be  derived  from  something  out  of  himself,  and  if  he  derive  his 
knowledge  from  something  out  of  himself,  then  it  must  be  dependent. 
And  what  evil  follows  from  this?  The  knowledge  of  the  nature, 
properties,  and  relations  of  things,  God  has  from  himself,  that  is  from 
the  knowledge  he  has  of  his  own  wisdom  and  omnipotence,  by  which 
the  things  that  are  have  been  produced,  and  from  which  only  they  could 
be  produced,  and  in  this  respect  his  knowledge  is  not  dependent ;  but  the 
knowledge  that  they  actually  exist  is  not  from  himself,  except  as  he 
makes  them  to  exist ;  and  when  they  are  made  to  be,  then  is  the  know- 
ledge  of  their  actual  existence  derived  from  them,  that  is,  from  the 
fact  itself.  As  long  as  they  are,  he  knows  that  they  are ;  when  they 
cease  to  be,  he  knows  that  they  are  not ;  and  before  they  exist  he  knows 
that  they  do  not  yet  exist.  His  knowledge  of  the  crimes  of  men,  for 
instance,  as  actually  committed,  is  dependent  upon  the  committal  of 
those  crimes.  He  knows  what  crime  is,  independent  of  its  actual  ex- 
istence ;  but  the  knowledge  of  it  as  committed;  depends  not  on  himself 
but  upon  the  creature.  And  so  far  is  this  from  derogating  from  the  know- 
ledge of  God,  that,  according  to  the  common  reason  of  things,  it  is  thus 
only  that  we  can  suppose  the  knowledge  of  God  tc  be  exact  and  perfect. 

But  this  is  not  al!  which  sustains  the  opinion,  that  there  is  order  and 


404  THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES.  [PART 

succession  also  in  the  knowledge  of  the  Divine  Being.  It  is  not  only  as 
far  as  the  knowledge  of  the  successive  and  transient  actual  existence  of 
things  is  concerned,  that  both  fore  and  after  knowledge  are  to  be  ascribed 
to  God,  but  also  in  another  respect.  Authors  of  the  class  just  quoted, 
speak  as  though  God  himself  had  no  ideas  of  time,  and  order,  and  suc- 
cession ;  as  though  past,  and  present,  and  to  come,  were  so  entirely  and 
exclusively  human,  that  even  the  infinite  mind  itself  had  not  the  power 
of  apprehending  them.  But  if  there  be  actually  a  successive  order  of 
events  as  to  us,  and  if  this  be  something  real,  and  not  a  dream,  then 
must  there  be  a  corresponding  knowledge  of  it  in  him,  and  therefore,  in 
all  things  which  respect  us,  a  knowledge  of  them  as  past,  present,  or  to 
come,  that  is,  as  they  are  in  the  experience  of  mankind,  and  in  the  truth 
of  things  itself.  Beside  this,  if  there  be  what  the  Scriptures  call 
"■purposes'''  with  God  ;  if  this  expression  is  not  to  be  ranked  with  those 
figures  of  speech  which  represent  Divine  power  by  a  hand  and  an  arm, 
then  there  is  foreknowledge,  strictly  and  properly  so  called,  with  God. 
The  knowledge  of  any  thing  actually  existing  is  collateral  with  its  ex- 
istence  ;  but  as  the  intention  to  produce  any  thing,  or  to  suffer  it  to  be 
produced,  must  be  before  the  actual  existence  of  the  thing,  because  that 
is  finite  and  caused,  so  that  very  intention  is  in  proof  of  the  precognition 
of  that  which  is  to  be  produced,  immediately  by  the  act  of  God,  or 
mediately  through  his  permission.  The  actual  occurrence  of  things  in 
succession  as  to  us,  and  in  pursuance  of  his  purpose  or  permission,  is 
therefore  a  sufficient  proof  of  the  existence  of  a  strict  and  proper 
prescience  of  them  by  almighty  God.  As  to  the  possible  nature,  and 
properties,  and  relations  of  things,  his  knowledge  may  have  no  sue 
cession,  no  order  of  time  ;  but  when  those  archetypes  of  things  in  the 
eternal  mind,  come  into  actual  being  by  his  power  or  permission,  it  is  in 
pursuance  of  previous  intention  :  ideas  of  time  are  thus  created,  so  to 
speak,  by  the  very  order  in  which  he  produces  them,  or  purposes  to  pro- 
duce  them,  and  his  knowledge  of  them  as  realities  corresponds  to  their 
nature  and  relations,  because  it  is  perfect  knowledge.  He  knows  them 
Defore  they  are  produced,  as  things  which  are  to  be  produced  or  per- 
mitted  ;  when  they  are  produced,  he  knows  them  with  the  additional  idea 
of  their  actual  being ;  and  when  they  cease  to  be,  he  knows  them  as 
things  which  have  been. 

Allied  to  the  attribute  of  immutability  is  the  liberty  of  God,  which 
enables  us  to  conceive  of  his  unchangeableness  in  the  noblest  and  most 
worthy  manner,  as  the  result  of  his  will,  and  infinite  moral  excellence, 
and  not  as  the  consequence  of  a  blind  and  physical  necessity.  *•  He 
doth  whatever  pleaseth  him,"  and  his  actions  are  the  result  of  will  and 
choice.  This,  as  Dr.  S.  Clarke  has  well  stated  it,  follows  from  his 
intelligence  ;  for  "  intelligence  without  liberty,  is  really,  in  respect  of  any 
power,  excellence,  or  perfection,  no  intelligence  at  all.     It  is  indeed  a 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  405 

consciousness,  but  it  is  merely  a  passive  one ;  a  consciousness,  not  of 
acting,  but  purely  of  being  acted  upon.  Without  liberty  nothing  can, 
in  any  tolerable  propriety  of  speech,  be  said  to  be  an  agent,  or  cause 
of  any  thing.  For  to  act  necessarily,  is  really  and  properly  not  to  act 
at  all,  but  only  to  be  acted  upon. 

"  If  the  Supreme  Cause  is  not  a  being  endued  with  liberty  and  choice, 
but  a  mere  necessary  agent,  whose  actions  are  all  as  absolutely  and 
naturally  necessary  as  his  existence ;  then  it  will  follow,  that  nothing 
which  is  not,  could  possibly  have  been  ;  and  that  nothing  which  is,  could 
possibly  not  have  been  ;  and  that  no  mode  or  circumstance  of  the  exist- 
ence  of  any  thing  could  possibly  have  been  in  any  respect  otherwise  than 
it  now  actually  is.  All  which  being  evidently  most  false  and  absurd,  it 
follows  on  the  contrary,  that  the  Supreme  Cause  is  not  a  mere  neces- 
sary agent,  but  a  being  endued  with  liberty  and  choice." 

It  is  true,  that  God  cannot  do  evil.  "  It  is  impossible  for  him  to  lie.''' 
But  "  this  is  a  necessity,  not  of  nature  and  fate,  but  of  fitness  and  wis- 
dom ;  a  necessity,  consistent  with  the  greatest  freedom  and  most  perfect 
choice.  For  the  only  foundation  of  this  necessity,  is  such  an  unalterable 
rectitude  of  will,  and  perfection  of  wisdom,  as  makes  it  impossible  for  a 
wise  being  to  resolve  to  act  foolishly  ;  or  for  a  nature  infinitely  good,  to 
choose  to  do  that  which  is  evil." 

Of  the  wisdom  of  God,  it  is  here  necessary  to  say  little,  because 
many  instances  of  it  in  the  application  of  knowledge  to  accomplish  such 
ends  as  were  worthy  of  himself  and  requisite  for  the  revelation  of  his 
glory  to  his  creatures,  have  been  given  in  the  proofs  of  an  intelligent 
and  designing  cause,  with  which  the  world  abounds.  On  this,  as  well 
as  on  the  other  attributes,  the  Scriptures  dwell  with  an  interesting  com- 
placency, and  lead  us  to  the  contemplation  of  an  unbounded  variety  of 
instances  in  which  this  perfection  of  God  has  been  manifested  to  men. 
He  is  "  the  only  wise  God ;"  and  as  to  his  works,  "  in  wisdom  hast  thou 
made  them  all."  Every  thing  has  been  done  by  nice  and  delicate  ad- 
justment, by  number,  weight,  and  measure.  "  He  seeth  under  the  whole 
heaven,  to  make  the  weight  for  the  winds,  to  weigh  the  waters  by  mea- 
sure, to  make  a  decree  for  the  rain,  and  a  way  for  the  lightning  of  the 
thunder."  Whole  volumes  have  been  written  on  this  amazing  subject, 
"the  Wisdom  of  God  in  the  Creation,"  and  it  is  still  unexhausted. 
Every  research  into  nature,  every  discovery  as  to  the  laws  by  which 
material  things  are  combined,  decomposed,  and  transformed,  throws 
new  light  upon  the  simplicity  of  the  elements,  which  are  the  subjects  of 
this  ceaseless  operation  of  Divine  power,  and  the  exquisite  skill,  and 
unbounded  compass  of  the  intelligence  which  directs  it.  The  vast  body 
of  facts  which  natural  philosophv  has  collected  with  so  much  laudable 
labour,  and  the  store  of  which  is  constantly  increasing,  is  a  commentary 
»n  the  words  of  insoiration,  ever  enlarging,  and  which  will  continue  to 


40G  THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES.  [PART 

enlarge  as  long  as  men  remain  on  earth  to  pursue  such  inquiries ;  "  he 
doeth  great  things  past  finding  out,  and  wonders  without  number."  "  Lo, 
these  are  parts  of  his  ways,  but  how  little  a  portion  is  heard  of  him  !" 
The  excellent  books  which  have  been  written  with  the  express  design 
to  illustrate  the  wisdom  of  God,  and  to  exhibit  the  final  causes  of  the 
creation,  and  preservation  of  the  innumerable  creatures  with  which  we 
are  surrounded,  must  be  referred  to  on  so  copious  a  subject,  (1)  and  a 
few  general  remarks  must  suffice. 

The  first  character  of  wisdom  is  to  act  for  worthy  ends.  To  act  with 
design  is  a  sufficient  character  of  intelligence ;  but  wisdom  is  the  jit  and 
proper  exercise  of  the  understanding ;  and  though  we  are  not  adequate 
judges  of  what  it  is  fit  and  proper  for  God  to  do  in  every  case,  yet  for 
many  of  his  acts  the  reasons  are  at  least  partially  given  in  his  own  word, 
and  they  command  at  once  our  adoration  and  gratitude,  as  worthy  of 
himself  and  benevolent  to  us.  The  reason  of  the  creation  of  the  world 
was  the  manifestation  of  the  perfections  of  God  to  the  rational  creatures 
designed  to  inhabit  it,  and  to  confer  on  them,  remaining  innocent,  a 
felicity  equal  to  their  largest  capacity.  The  end  was  important,  and 
the  means  by  which  it  was  appointed  to  be  accomplished  evidently^. 
To  be  was  itself  made  a  source  of  satisfaction.  God  was  announced  to 
man  as  his  Maker,  Lord,  and  Friend,  by  revelation ;  but  invisible  him- 
self, every  object  was  fitted  to  make  him  present  to  the  mind  of  his 
creature,  and  to  be  a  remembrancer  of  his  power,  glory,  and  care. 
The  heavens  "  declared  his  glory  ;"  the  fruitful  earth  "  his  goodness." 
The  understanding  of  man  was  called  into  exercise  by  the  number  and 
variety,  and  the  curious  structure  of  the  works  of  God  ;  pleasures  of 
taste  were  formed  by  their  sublimity,  beauty,  and  harmony.  "Day 
unto  day  uttered  speech,  night  unto  night  taught  knowledge  ;"  and  God 
in  his  law,  and  in  his  creative  munificence  and  preserving  care,  was 
thus  ever  placed  before  his  creature,  arrayed  in  the  full  splendour  of  his 
natural  and  moral  attributes,  the  object  of  awe  and  love,  of  trust  and  of 
submission.  The  great  moral  end  of  the  creation  of  man,  and  of  his 
residence  in  the  world,  and  the  means  by  which  it  was  accomplished, 
were,  therefore,  displays  of  the  Divine  wisdom. 

It  is  another  mark  of  wisdom  when  the  process  by  which  any  work  is 
accomplished  is  simple,  and  many  effects  are  produced  from  one  or  a 
few  elements.  "  When  every  several  effect  has  a  particular  separate 
cause,  this  gives  no  pleasure  to  the  spectator,  as  not  discovering  con- 
trivance ;  but  that  work  is  beheld  with  admiration  and  delight  as  the  result 

(1)  Ray's  "Wisdom  of  God." — Derham's  Astro  and  Physico-Theology. — Palcy's 
Nat.  Theol. — Sturm's  Reflections. — Kirby  and  S  pence's  Entomology;  and,  though 
not  written  with  any  such  design,  St.  Pierre's  "  Studies  of  Nature"  open  to  the 
mind  that  can  supply  the  pious  sentiments  which  the  author  unfortunately  wanted, 
many  striking  instances  of  the  wisdom  and  benevolence  of  God. 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES.  407 

of  deep  counsel,  which  is  complicated  in  its  parts,  and  yet  simple  in  its 
operation,  when  a  great  variety  of  effects  are  seen  to  arise  from  one 
principle  operating  uniformly."  (Abernethy  on  Attributes.)  This  is  the 
character  of  the  works  of  God.  From  one  material  substance,  (2)  pos- 
sessing the  same  essential  properties,  all  the  visible  beings  which  sur- 
round us  are  made  ;  the  granite  rock,  and  the  central  all-pervading  sun ; 
the  moveless  clod,  the  rapid  lightning,  and  the  transparent  air.  Gravi- 
tation unites  the  atoms  which  compose  the  world,  combines  the  planets 
into  one  system,  governs  the  regularity  of  their  motions,  and  yet  vast  as 
is  its  power,  and  all-pervading  as  its  influence,  it  submits  to  an  infinite 
number  of  modifications,  which  allow  of  the  motion  of  individual  bodies  ; 
and  it  gives  place  to  even  contrary  forces,  which  yet  it  controls  and 
regulates.  One  act  of  Divine  power  in  giving  a  certain  inclination  to 
the  earth's  axis,  produced  the  effect  of  the  vicissitude  of  seasons,  gave 
laws  to  its  temperature,  and  covered  it  with  increased  variety  of  pro- 
ductions. To  the  composition,  and  a  few  simple  laws  impressed  upon 
light,  every  object  owes  its  colour,  and  the  heavens  and  the  earth  are 
invested  with  beauty.  A  combination  of  earth,  water,  and  the  gasses 
of  the  atmosphere,  forms  the  strength  and  majesty  of  the  oak,  the  grace 
and  beauty,  and  odour  of  the  rose ;  and  from  the  principle  of  evapora- 
tion, are  formed  clouds  which  "  drop  fatness,"  dews  which  refresh  the 
languid  fields,  springs  and  rivers  that  make  the  valleys,  through  which 
they  flow,  "  laugh  and  sing." 

Variety  of  equally  perfect  operation  is  a  character  of  wisdom.  In  the 
works  of  God  the  variety  is  endless,  and  shows  the  wisdom  from  which 
they  spring  to  be  infinite.  Of  that  mind  in  which  all  the  ideas  after  which 
the  innumerable  objects  composing  the  universe  must  have  had  a  pre- 
vious and  distinct  existence,  because  after  that  pattern  they  were  made ; 
and  not  only  the  ideas  of  the  things  themselves,  but  of  every  part  of 
which  they  are  composed ;  of  the  place  which  every  particle  in  their 
composition  should  fill,  and  the  part  it  should  act,  we  can  have  no  ade- 
quate conception.  The  thought  is  overwhelming.  This  variety  is  too 
obvious  to  be  dwelt  upon  ;  yet  a  few  of  its  nicer  shades  may  be  adverted 
to,  as  showing,  so  to  speak,  the  infinite  resources,  and  the  endlessly 
diversified  conceptions  of  the  Creator.  "  O  Lord,  how  manifold  are  thv 
works !"  All  the  three  kingdoms  of  nature  pour  forth  the  riches  of 
variety.  The  varied  forms  of  crystalization  and  composition  in  minerals; 
the  colours,  forms,  and  qualities  of  vegetables ;  the  kinds  and  properties, 
and  habits  of  animals.  The  gradations  from  one  class  of  beings  to  ano- 
ther; from  unformed  to  organic,  from  dead  to  living,  from  mechanic 
sensitiveness  to  sensation,  from  dull  to  active  sense,  from  sluggishness 

(2)  •"  A  few  undecom pounded  bodies,  which  may  perhaps  ultimately  be  resolved 
into  still  fewer  elements,  or  which  may  be  different  forms  of  the  same  material, 
constitute  the  whole  of  our  tangible  universe  of  things."  (Davy's  Chymistry.) 


408  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

to  motion ;  from  creeping  to  flying,  from  sensation  to  intellect,  from 
instinct  to  reason,  (3)  from  mortal  to  immortality,  from  man  to  angel, 
from  angel  to  seraph.  Between  similitude  and  total  unlikeness  variety 
has  a  boundless  range  ;  but  its  delicacy  of  touch,  so  to  speak,  is  shown 
in  the  narrower  field  that  lies  between  similarity  and  entire  resemblance, 
of  which  the  works  of  God  present  so  many  curious  examples.  No  two 
things  appear  exactly  alike,  when  even  of  the  same  kind.  Plants  of  the 
same  species,  the  leaves  and  flowers  of  the  same  plant,  have  all  their 
varieties.  Animals  of  the  same  kind  have  their  individual  character. 
Any  two  blades  of  grass,  or  particles  of  sand,  shall  show  a  marked 
difference  when  carefully  compared.  The  wisdom  of  this  appears 
more  strongly  marked  when  we  consider  that  important  ends,  both  intel- 
lectual and  practical,  often  depend  upon  it.  The  resemblances  of  various 
natural  things  in  greater  or  less  degree,  become  the  means  of  acquiring 
a  knowledge  of  them  with  greater  ease,  because  it  is  made  the  basis  of 
their  arrangement  into  kinds  and  sorts,  without  which  the  human  memory 
would  fail,  and  the  understanding  be  confused.  The  differences  in  things 
are  as  important  as  their  resemblances.  This  is  strikingly  illustrated  in 
the  domestic  animals  and  in  men.  If  the  individuals  of  the  former  did 
not  differ,  no  property  could  be  claimed  in  them,  or  when  lost  they  could 
not  be  recovered.  The  countenance  of  one  human  individual  differs 
from  all  the  rest  of  his  species ;  his  voice  and  his  manner  have  the  same 
variety.  This  is  not  only  an  illustration  of  the  resources  of  creative 
power  and  wisdom ;  but  of  design  and  intention  to  secure  a  practical  end. 
Parents,  children,  and  friends,  could  not  otherwise  be  distinguished,  nor 
the  criminal  from  the  innocent.  No  felon  could  be  identified  by  his 
accuser,  and  the  courts  of  judgment  would  be  obstructed,  and  often  ren- 
dered of  no  avail  for  the  protection  of  life  and  property. 

To  variety  of  kind  and  form,  we  may  add  variety  of  magnitude.  In 
the  works  of  God,  we  have  the  extremes,  and  those  extremes  filled  up 
in  perfect  gradation  from  magnificence  to  minuteness.  We  adore  the 
mighty  sweep  of  that  power  which  scooped  out  the  bed  of  the  fathom- 
less ocean,  moulded  the  mountains,  and  filled  space  with  innumerable 
worlds ;  but  the  same  hand  formed  the  animalcule,  which  requires  the 

(3)  It  is  not  intended  here  to  countenance  the  opinion  that  the  difference  be- 
tween the  highest  instinct  and  the  lowest  reason,  is  not  great.  It  is  as  great  as 
the  difference  between  an  accountable  and  an  unaccountable  nature;  between  a 
being  under  a  law  of  force,  and  a  law  of  moral  obligation  and  motive  ;  between 
a  nature  limited  in  its  capacity  of  improvement,  and  one  whose  capabilities  are 
unlimited.  "The  rash  hypothesis,  that  the  negro  is  the  connecting  link  between 
the  white  man  and  the  ape,  took  its  rise  from  the  arbitrary  classification  of  Lin- 
niEus,  which  associates  man  and  the  ape  in  the  same  order.  The  more  natural 
arrangement  of  later  systems  separate  them  into  the  bimanous  and  quadrumanus  ci- 
ders. If  this  classification  had  not  been  followed,  it  would  not.  have  occurred  to  the 
most  fanciful  mind  to  find  in  the  negro  an  intermediate  link."  (Pritchard  on  Man.^ 


SECOND.I  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  409 

strongest  magnifying  power  of  optical  instruments  to  make  it  visible 
In  that  too  the  work  is  perfect.    We  perceive  matter  in  its  most  delicate 
organization,  bones,  sinews,  tendons,  muscles,  arteries,  veins,  the  pulse 
of  the  heart,  and  the  heaving  of  the  lungs.     The  workmanship  is  as 
complete  in  the  smallest  as  in  the  most  massive  of  the  works  of  God. 

The  connection  and  dependence  of  the  works  of  God  are  as  wonderful 
as  their  variety.  Every  thing  fills  its  place,  not  by  accident,  but  by 
design ;  wise  regulation  runs  through  the  whole,  and  shows  that  that 
whole  is  the  work  of  one,  and  of  one  alone.  The  meanest  weed  which 
grows,  stands  in  intimate  connection  with  the  mighty  universe  itself.  It 
depends  upon  the  atmosphere  for  moisture,  which  atmosphere  supposes 
an  ocean,  clouds,  winds,  gravitation  ;  it  depends  upon  the  sun  for  colour, 
and,  essentially,  for  its  required  degree  of  temperature.  This  supposes 
the  revolution  of  the  earth,  and  the  adjustment  of  the  whole  planetary  sys- 
tem. Too  near  the  sun,  it  would  be  burned  up ;  too  far  from  it,  it  would 
be  chilled.  What  union  of  extremes  is  here, — the  grass  of  the  earth, 
"which  to-day  is,  and  to-morrow  is  cast  into  the  oven,"  with  the  stupend- 
ous powers  of  nature,  the  most  glorious  works  of  the  right  hand  of  God ! 

So  clearly  does  wisdom  display  itself,  in  the  adoption  of  means  to 
ends  in  the  visible  world,  that  there  are  comparatively  few  of  the 
objects  which  surround  us,  and  few  of  their  qualities,  the  use  of  which 
is  not  apparent.  In  this  particular,  the  degree  in  which  the  Creator  has 
been  pleased  to  manifest  his  wisdom  is  remarkably  impressive. 

"  Among  all  the  properties  of  things,  we  discover  no  inutility,  no 
superfluity.  Voluntary  motion  is  denied  to  the  vegetable  creation, 
because  mechanical  motion  answers  the  purpose.  This  raises,  in  some 
plants,  a  defence  against  the  wind,  expands  others  toward  the  sun, 
inclines  them  to  the  support  they  require,  and  diffuses  their  seed.  If 
we  ascend  higher  toward  irrational  animals,  we  find  them  possessed  of 
powers  exactly  suited  to  the  rank  they  hold  in  the  scale  of  existence. 

"  The  oyster  is  fixed  to  his  rock ;  the  herring  traverses  a  vast  extent 
of  ocean.  But  the  powers  of  the  oyster  are  not  deficient ;  he  opens 
his  shell  for  nourishment,  and  closes  it  at  the  approach  of  an  enemy. 
Nor  are  those  of  the  herring  superfluous ;  he  secures  and  supports 
himself  in  the  frozen  seas,  and  commits  his  spawn  in  the  summer  to  the 
more  genial  influence  of  warmer  climates.  The  strength  and  ferocity 
of  beasts  of  prey  are  required  by  the  mode  of  subsistence  allotted  to 
them.  If  the  ant  has  peculiar  sagacity,  it  is  but  a  compensation  for  its 
weakness ;  if  the  bee  is  remarkable  for  its  foresight,  that  foresight  is 
rendered  necessary  by  the  short  duration  of  its  harvest.  Nothing  can 
be  more  various  than  the  powers  allowed  to  animals,  each  in  their  order 
yet  it  will  be  found,  that  all  these  powers,  which  make  the  study  of 
nature  so  endless  and  so  interesting,  suffice  to  their  necessities  and  no 
more."  (Sumner's  Records  of  Creation.) 


410  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  ^PAKT 

"  Equally  conspicuous  is  the  wisdom  of  God  in  the  government  of 
nations,  of  states,  and  of  kingdoms  :  yea,  rather  more  conspicuous  ;  if 
infinite  can  be  allowed  to  admit  of  any  degrees.  For  the  whole  inani- 
mate creation,  being  totally  passive  and  inert,  can  make  no  opposition 
to  his  will.  Therefore,  in  the  natural  world  all  things  roll  on  in  an  even 
uninterrupted  course.  But  it  is  far  otherwise  in  the  moral  world. 
Here  evil  men  and  evil  spirits  continually  oppose  the  Divine  will,  and 
create  numberless  irregularities.  Here,  therefore,  is  full  scope  for  the 
exercise  of  all  the  riches  both  of  the  wisdom  and  knowledge  of  God,  in 
counteracting  all  the  wickedness  and  folly  of  men,  and  all  the  subtlety 
of  Satan,  to  carry  on  his  own  glorious  design,  the  salvation  of  lost  man- 
Kind.  Indeed,  were  he  to  do  this  by  an  absolute  decree,  and  by  his  own 
irresistible  power,  it  would  imply  no  wisdom  at  all.  But  his  wisdom  is 
shown,  by  saving  man  in  such  a  manner  as  not  to  destroy  his  nature, 
nor  to  take  away  the  liberty  which  he  has  given  him."  (Wesley's 
Sermons.) 

But  in  the  means  by  which  offending  men  are  reconciled  to  God,  the 
inspired  writers  of  the  New  Testament  peculiarly  glory  as  the  most 
eminent  manifestations  of  the  wisdom  of  God. 

"  For  the  wonderful  work  of  redemption  the  apostle  gives  us  this  note, 
that  '  he  hath  therein  abounded  in  all  wisdom  and  prudence.'  *  Herein 
did  the  perfection  of  wisdom  and  prudence  shine  forth,  to  reconcile  the 
mighty  amazing  difficulties  and  seeming  contrarieties,  real  contrarieties 
indeed,  if  he  had  not  some  way  intervened,  to  order  the  course  of  things, 
such  as  the  conflict  between  justice  and  mercy ; — that  the  one  must  be 
satisfied  in  such  a  way  as  the  other  might  be  gratified :  which  could 
never  have  had  its  pleasing  grateful  exercise  without  being  reconciled 
to  the  former.  And  that  this  should  be  brought  about  by  such  an  expe- 
dient, that  there  should  be  no  complaint  on  the  one  hand,  nor  on  the 
other.  Herein  hath  the  wisdom  of  a  crucified  Redeemer,  that  whereof 
the  crucified  Redeemer  or  Saviour  was  the  effected  object,  triumphed 
over  all  the  imaginations  of  men,  and  all  the  contrivances  even  of 
devils,  by  that  death  of  his,  by  which  the  devil  purposed  the  last  defeat, 
the  complete  destruction  of  the  whole  design  of  his  coming  into  the 
world,  even  by  that  very  means,  it  is  brought  about  so  as  to  fill  hell 
with  horror,  and  heaven  and  earth  with  wonder."  (Howe's  Posthumous 
Works.) 

"  Wisdom  in  the  treasure  of  its  incomprehensible  light,  devised  to  save 
man,  without  prejudice  to  the  perfections  of  God,  by  transferring  the 
punishment  to  a  Surety,  and  thus  to  punish  sin  as  required  by  justice, 
and  pardon  the  sinner  as  desired  by  mercy."  (Bates's  Harmony.) 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL   INSTITUTES.  411 

CHAPTER  VI. 

Attributes  of  God. — Goodness. 

Goodness,  when  considered  as  a  distinct  attribute  of  God,  is  not 
taken  in  the  sense  of  universal  rectitude,  but  signifies  benevolence,  or  a 
disposition  to  communicate  happiness.  From  an  inward  principle  of 
good  will,  God  exerts  his  omnipotence  in  diffusing  happiness  through 
the  universe,  in  all  fitting  proportion,  according  to  the  different  capaci- 
ties with  which  he  has  endowed  his  creatures,  and  according  to  the 
direction  of  the  most  perfect  wisdom.  "  Thou  art  good,  and  doest 
good. — The  Father  of  lights,  from  whom  cometh  every  good  and  perfect 
gift. — O  praise  the  Lord!  for  he  is  good,  and  his  mercy  endureth 
for  ever." 

This  view  of  the  Divine  character  in  the  Holy  Scriptures  has  in  it 
some  important  peculiarities,  too  often  overlooked,  but  which  give  to 
the  revelation  they  make  of  God,  a  singular  glory. 

Goodness  in  God  is  represented  as  goodness  of  nature ;  as  one  of  his 
essential  perfections,  and  not  as  an  accidental  or  an  occasional  affec- 
tion ;  and  thus  he  is  set  infinitely  above  the  gods  of  the  heathen,  those 
imaginary  creations  of  the  perverted  imaginations  of  corrupt  men, 
whose  benevolence  was  occasional,  limited,  and  apt  to  be  disturbed 
by  contrary  passions. 

Such  were  the  best  views  of  pagans ;  but  to  us  a  being  of  a  far  dif- 
ferent character  is  manifested  as  our  Creator  and  Lord.  One  of  his 
appropriate  and  distinguisning  names,  as  proclaimed  by  himself,  signi- 
fies "  The  gracious  One,"  and  imports  goodness  in  the  principle ;  and 
another, "  The  all-sufficient  and  all-bountiful  pourer  forth  of  all  good ;" 
and  expresses  goodness  in  action.  Another  interesting  view  of  this 
attribute  is,  that  the  goodness  of  God  is  efficient  and  inexhaustible ;  it 
reaches  every  fit  case,  it  supplies  all  possible  want;  and  "  endureth  for 
ever."  Hence  the  Talmudists  explain  Hi?  Suaddai  in  Gen.  xvii,  1, 
by  "  in  aternum  sufficient  sum,"  I  am  the  eternally  all-sufficient.  Like 
his  emblem,  the  sun,  which  sheds  his  rays  upon  the  surrounding  worlds, 
and  enlightens  and  cherishes  the  whole  creation  without  being  dimi- 
nished in  splendour,  he  imparts  without  being  exhausted,  and,  ever 
giving,  has  yet  infinitely  more  to  give. 

A  third  and  equally  important  representation  is,  that  he  takes  plea- 
sure in  the  exercise  of  benevolence ;  that  "  he  delights  in  mercy."  It 
is  not  wrung  from  him  with  reluctance  ;  it  is  not  stintedly  measured  out, 
it  is  not  coldly  imparted.  God  saw  the  works  he  had  made,  that "  they 
were  good,"  with  an  evident  gratification  and  delight  in  what  he  had 
imparted  to  a  world  "  full  of  his  goodness,"  and  into  which  sin  and 


412  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

misery  had  not  entered.  "  He  is  rich  to  all  that  call  upon  him ; — he 
giveth  liberally  and  upbraideth  not ; — exceeding  abundantly  above  all 
that  we  can  ask  or  think."  It  is  under  these  views,  that  the  Scriptures 
afford  so  much  encouragement  to  prayer,  and  lay  so  strong  a  ground 
for  that  absolute  trust  in  God,  which  they  enjoin  as  one  of  our  highest 
duties,  as  it  is  the  source  of  our  greatest  comfort. 

Another  illustration  of  the  Divine  goodness,  and  which  is  also  pecu- 
liar to  the  Scriptures,  is,  that  nothing,  if  capable  of  happiness,  comes 
immediately  from  his  forming  hands  without  being  placed  in  circum- 
stances of  positive  felicity.  By  heathens,  acquainted  only  with  a  state 
of  things  in  which  much  misery  is  suffered,  this  view  of  the  Divine 
goodness  could  not  be  taken.  They  could  not  but  suppose  either  many 
gods,  some  benevolent ;  and  others,  and  the  greater  number,  of  an 
opposite  character ;  or  one,  in  whose  nature  no  small  proportion  of 
malevolence  was  intermixed  with  milder  sentiments.  The  Scriptures, 
on  the  contrary,  represent  misery  as  brought  into  the  world  by  the  fault 
of  creatures ;  and  that  otherwise  it  had  never  entered.  When  God 
made  the  world,  he  made  it  good ;  when  he  made  man,  he  made  him 
happy,  with  power  to  remain  so.  He  sows  good  seed  in  his  field,  and 
if  tares  spring  up,  "an  enemy  hath  done  this."  This  is  the  doctrine  of 
inspiration.  Finally,  the  Scriptures,  upon  this  lapse  of  man,  and  the 
introduction  of  natural  and  moral  evil,  represent  God  as  establishing  an 
order  of  perfectly  sufficient  means  to  remedy  both.  One  of  his  names 
is  therefore  SxiJ)  Goel,  "the  Redeemer,"  and  another,  71313,  Bonah, 
"  the  Restorer."  The  means  by  which  he  justifies  these  titles,  display 
his  goodness  with  such  peculiar  eminence,  that  they  are  called  "  tlie 
riches  of  his  grace"  and  sometimes  "  the  riches  of  his  glory."  By  the 
incarnation  and  sacrificial  death  of  the  Son  of  God,  he  became  the 
"  Goel,"  the  kinsman,  and  "  Redeemer"  of  mankind  ;  he  bought  back 
and  "  restored"  the  forfeited  inheritance  of  happiness,  present  and  eter- 
nal, into  the  human  family,  and  placed  it  again  within  the  reach  of 
every  human  being.  In  anticipation  of  this  propitiation,  the  first 
offender  was  forgiven  and  raised  to  eternal  life,  and  the  same  mercy 
has  been  promised  to  all  his  descendants.  No  man  perishes  finally  but 
by  his  own  refusal  of  the  mercy  of  his  God.  And  though  the  restora- 
tion of  individuals  is  not  at  once  followed  by  the  removal  of  the  natural 
evils  of  pain,  death,  &c ;  for  had  the  whole  race  of  man  accepted  the 
offered  grace,  they  would  not,  in  this  present  state,  have  been  removed ; 
yet  beyond  a  short  life  on  earth  these  evils  are  not  extended,  and,  even 
in  this  life,  they  are  made  the  means  of  moral  ends,  tending  to  a  higher 
moral  perfection,  and  greater  happiness  in  another. 

Such  are  the  views  of  the  Divine  goodness  as  unfolded  in  the  Scrip- 
tures ;  views  of  the  utmost  importance  in  an  inquiry  into  the  proofs  of 
this  attribute  of  the  Divine  nature,  which  are  afforded   by  the  actual 


8ECOND.J  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  413 

circumstances  of  the  world.  Independent  of  their  aid,  no  proper  esti- 
mate can  be  taken  of  the  sum  of  evil,  which  actually  exists ;  nor  of  its 
bearing  upon  the  Divine  character.  On  these  subjects  there  have  been 
conflicting  opinions  ;  and  the  principal  reason  has  been,  that  many  per- 
sons  on  both  sides,  those  who  have  impugned  the  goodness  of  God,  and 
those  who  have  defended  it  against  objections  taken  from  the  existence 
of  evil,  have  too  often  made  the  question  a  subject  of  pure  "  natural 
theology,"  and  have  therefore  necessarily  formed  their  conclusions  on  a 
partial  and  most  defective  view  of  the  case.  This  is  not  indeed  a  sub- 
ject for  natural  theology.  It  is  absurd  to  make  it  so  ;  and  the  best 
writers  have  either  been  pressed  with  the  insuperable  difficulties  which 
have  arisen  from  excluding  the  light  which  revelation  throws  upon  the 
state  of  man  in  this  world,  and  his  connection  with  another ;  or,  like 
Paley,  they  have  burst  the  self-inflicted  restraints,  and  confessed  "  that 
when  we  let  in  religious  considerations,  we  let  in  light  upon  the  difficul- 
ties of  nature." 

With  respect  to  the  illustrations  of  the  Divine  goodness  which  are 
presented  in  the  natural  and  moral  world,  there  are  extremes  of 
opinion  on  both  sides.  The  views  of  some  are  too  gloomy,  and  shut 
out  much  of  the  evidences  of  the  Divine  benignity :  others  embrace  a 
system  of  Optimism,  and  exclude,  on  the  other  hand,  the  manifestations 
of  the  Divine  justice  and  the  retributive  character  of  the  universal 
Governor.  The  Scriptures  enable  us  to  adjust  these  extremes,  and  to 
give  to  God  the  glory  of  an  absolute  goodness,  without  limiting  its  ten- 
derness by  severity,  or  diminishing  its  majesty  by  weakness. 

The  dark  side  of  the  actual  state  of  the  world  and  of  man,  its  inha- 
bitant, has  often,  for  insidious  purposes,  been  very  deeply  shadowed. — 
The  facts  alleged  may  indeed  be  generally  admitted.  The  globe,  as 
the  residence  of  man,  has  its  inconveniencies  and  positive  evils ;  its 
variable,  and  often  pernicious  climates ;  its  earthquakes,  volcanoes, 
tempests,  and  inundations ;  its  sterility  in  some  places,  which  wears 
down  man  with  labour ;  its  exuberance  of  vegetable  and  animal  life  in 
others,  which  generates  disease  or  gives  birth  to  annoying  and  destruc- 
tive animals.  The  diseases  of  the  human  race  ;  their  short  life  and 
painful  dissolution  ;  their  general  poverty  ;  their  universal  sufferings  and 
cares  ;  the  distractions  of  civil  society  ;  oppressions,  frauds,  and  wrongs  ; 
must  all  be  acknowledged.  To  these  may  be  added  the  sufferings  and 
death  of  animals,  and  the  universal  war  carried  on  between  different 
creatures  throughout  the  earth.  This  enumeration  of  evils  might, 
indeed,  be  greatly  enlarged  without  exaggeration. 

But  this  is  not  the  only  view  to  be  taken.  It  must  be  combined  with 
others  equally  obvious  ;  there  are  lights  as  well  as  shadows  in  the  scene, 
and  the  darkest  masses  which  it  presents  are  mingled  with  bright  and 
joyous  colours. 


414  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

For,  as  Paley  has  observed,  "  In  a  vast  plurality  of  instances,  in 
which  contrivance  is  perceived,  the  design  of  the  contrivance  is 
beneficial. 

"  When  God  created  the  human  species,  either  he  wished  their  hap- 
piness,  or  he  wished  their  misery,  or  he  was  indifferent  and  unconcerned 
about  either. 

"  If  he  had  wished  our  misery,  he  might  have  made  sure  of  his  pur- 
pose,  by  forming  our  senses  to  be  so  many  sores  and  pains  to  us,  as  they 
are  now  instruments  of  gratification  and  enjoyment :  or  by  placing  us 
amidst  objects  so  ill  suited  to  our  perceptions  as  to  have  continually 
offended  us,  instead  of  ministering  to  our  refreshment  and  delight.  He 
might  have  made,  for  example,  every  thing  we  tasted,  bitter  ;  every  thing 
we  saw,  loathsome ;  every  thing  we  touched,  a  sting ;  every  smell,  a 
stench  ;  and  every  sound,  a  discord. 

"  If  he  had  been  indifferent  about  our  happiness  or  misery,  we  must 
impute  to  our  good  fortune,  (as  all  design  by  this  supposition  is  excluded,) 
both  the  capacity  of  our  senses  to  receive  pleasure,  and  the  supply  ot 
external  objects  fitted  to  produce  it. 

"  But  either  ot  these,  and  still  more  both  of  them,  being  too  much  to 
be  attributed  to  accident,  nothing  remains  but  the  first  supposition,  that 
God,  when  he  created  the  human  species,  wished  their  happiness  ;  and 
made  for  them  the  provision  which  he  has  made,  with  that  view  and  for 
that  purpose. 

"  The  same  argument  may  be  proposed  in  different  terms,  thus : — 
Contrivance  proves  design  ;  and  the  predominant  tendency  of  the  con- 
trivance  indicates  the  disposition  of  the  designer.  The  world  abounds 
with  contrivances ;  and  all  the  contrivances  which  we  are  acquainted 
with,  are  directed  to  beneficial  purposes.  Evil  no  doubt  exists,  but 
is  never,  that  we  can  perceive,  the  object  of  contrivance.  Teeth  are 
contrived  to  eat,  not  to  ache  ;  their  aching  now  and  then  is  incidental  to 
the  contrivance,  perhaps  inseparable  from  it ;  or  even,  if  you  will,  let  it 
be  called  a  defect  in  the  contrivance  ;  but  it  is  not  the  object  of  it. — 
This  is  a  distinction  which  well  deserves  to  be  attended  to.  In 
describing  implements  of  husbandry,  you  would  hardly  say  of  the  sickle, 
that  it  is  made  to  cut  the  reaper's  hand,  though,  from  the  construction 
of  the  instrument,  and  the  manner  of  using  it,  this  mischief  often  follows. 
But  if  you  had  occasion  to  describe  instruments  of  torture  or  execution, 
this  engine,  you  would  say,  is  to  extend  the  sinews ;  this  to  dislocate 
the  joints ;  this  to  break  the  bones  ;  this  to  scorch  the  soles  of  the  feet. 
Here  pain  and  misery  are  the  very  objects  of  the  contrivance.  Now, 
nothing  of  this  sort  is  to  be  found  in  the  works  of  nature.  We  nevei 
discover  a  train  of  contrivance  to  bring  about  an  evil  purpose.  No 
anatomist  ever  discovered  a  system  of  organization  calculated  to  pro- 
duce pain  and  disease ;  or,  in  explaining  the  parts  of  the  human  body 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  415 

ever  said,  this  is  to  irritate ;  this  to  inflame  ;  this  duct  is  to  convey  the 
gravel  to  the  kidneys ;  this  gland  to  secrete  the  humour  which  forms 
the  gout.  If  by  chance  he  come  at  a  part  of  which  he  knows  not  the 
use,  the  most  he  can  say  is,  that  it  is  useless :  no  one  ever  suspects 
that  it  is  put  there  to  incommode,  to  annoy,  or  to  torment."  (Natural 
Theology.) 

The  chief  exceptions  to  this  are  those  of  venomous  animals,  and  of 
an'mals  preying  upon  one  another  ;  on  the  first  of  which  it  has  been 
remarked,  not  only  that  the  number  of  venomous  creatures  is  'few,  but 
that  "the  animal  itself  being  regarded,  the  faculty  complained  of  is 
good ;  being  conducive,  in  all  cases,  to  the  defence  of  the  animal ;  in 
some  cases,  to  the  subduing  of  its  prey ;  and  in  some  probably  to  the 
killing  of  it,  when  caught,  by  a  mortal  wound  inflicted  in  the  passage  to 
the  stomach,  which  may  be  no  less  merciful  to  the  victim,  than  salutary 
to  the  devourer.  In  the  viper,  for  instance,  the  poisonous  fang  may  do 
that  which,  in  other  animals  of  prey,  is  done  by  the  crush  of  the  teeth. 
Frogs  and  mice  might  be  swallowed  alive  without  it. 

"The  second  case,  namely,  that  of  animals  devouring  one  another, 
furnishes  a  consideration  of  much  larger  extent.  To  judge  whether,  as 
a  general  provision,  this  can  be  deemed  an  evil,  even  so  far  as  we  under- 
stand its  consequences,  which  probably  is  a  partial  understanding,  the 
following  reflections  are  fit  to  be  attended  to : — 

"  1.  Immortality  upon  this  earth  is  out  of  the  question.  Without  death 
there  could  be  no  generation,  no  parental  relation,  that  is,  as  things  are 
constituted,  no  animal  happiness.  The  particular  duration  of  life, 
assigned  to  different  animals,  can  form  no  part  of  the  objection  ;  because 
whatever  that  duration  be,  while  it  remains  finite  and  limited,  it  may 
always  be  asked,  why  is  it  no  longer  ?  The  natural  age  of  different 
animals  varies  from  a  single  day  to  a  century  of  years.  No  account 
can  be  given  of  this  ;  nor  could  any  be  given,  whatever  other  proportion 
of  life  had  obtained  among  them. 

"  The  term,  then,  of  life  in  different  animals,  being  the  same  as  it  is, 
he  question  is,  what  mode  of  taking  it  away  is  the  best  even  for  the 
animal  itself. 

"  Now,  according  to  the  established  order  of  nature,  (which  we  must 
suppose  to  prevail,  or  we  cannot  reason  at  all  upon  the  subject,)  the 
three  methods  by  which  life  is  usually  put  an  end  to,  are  acute  diseases, 
decay,  and  violence.  The  simple  and  natural  life  of  brutes  is  not  often 
visited  by  acute  distempers  ;  nor  could  it  be  deemed  an  improvement 
of  their  lot  if  they  were.  Let  it  be  considered,  therefore,  in  what  a 
condition  of  suffering  and  misery  a  brute  animal  is  placed,  which  is 
left  to  perish  by  decay.  In  human  sickness  or  infirmity,  there  is  the 
assistance  of  man's  rational  fellow  creatures,  if  not  to  alleviate  his 
pains,  at  least  to  minister  to  his  necessities,  and  to  supply  the  place  of  his 


410  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

own  activity.  A  brute,  in  his  wild  and  natural  state,  does  every  thing 
for  himself.  When  his  strength,  therefore,  or  his  speed,  or  his  limbs, 
or  his  senses  fail  him,  he  is  delivered  over  either  to  absolute  famine,  or 
to  the  protracted  wretchedness  of  a  life  slowly  wasted  by  scarcity  of 
food.  Is  it  then  to  see  the  world  filled  with  drooping,  superannuated, 
half-starved,  helpless,  and  unhelped  animals,  that  you  would  alter  the 
present  system  of  pursuit  and  prey  ? 

"  2.  This  system  is  also  to  them  the  spring  of  motion  and  activity  on 
both  sides.  The  pursuit  of  its  prey  forms  the  employment,  and  appears 
to  constitute  the  pleasure,  of  a  considerable  part  of  the  animal  crea- 
tion. The  using  of  the  means  of  defence  or  flight,  or  precaution, 
forms  also  the  business  of  another  part.  And  even  of  this  latter  tribe 
we  have  no  reason  to  suppose  that  their  happiness  is  much  molested  by 
their  fears.  Their  danger  exists  continually  ;  and  in  some  cases  they 
seem  to  be  so  far  sensible  of  it  as  to  provide  in  the  best  manner  they 
can  against  it :  but  it  is  only  when  the  attack  is  actually  made  upon 
them  that  they  appear  to  suffer  from  it.  To  contemplate  the  insecurity 
of  their  condition  with  anxiety  and  dread,  requires  a  degree  of  reflec- 
tion, which  (happily  for  themselves)  they  do  not  possess.  A  hare,  not- 
withstanding the  number  of  its  dangers  and  its  enemies,  is  as  playful  an 
animal  as  any  other." 

It  is  to  be  observed,  that  as  to  animals,  there  is  still  much  happiness. 

"The  air,  the  earth,  the  water,  teem  with  delighted  existence.  In  a 
spring  noon  or  a  summer  evening,  on  whichever  side  I  turn  my  eyes,  my- 
riads of  happy  beings  crowd  upon  my  view.  '  The  insect  youth  are  on  the 
wing.'  Swarms  of  new-born  flies  are  trying  their  pinions  in  the  air. 
Their  sportive  motions,  their  wanton  mazes,  their  gratuitous  activity, 
their  continual  change  of  place  without  use  or  purpose,  testify  their  joy  and 
the  exultation  which  they  feel  in  their  lately-discovered  faculties.  A  ben 
among  the  flowers,  in  spring,  is  one  of  the  cheerfullest  objects  that  can  be 
looked  upon.  Its  life  appears  to  be  all  enjoyment;  so  busy  and  so 
pleased  ;  yet  it  is  only  a  specimen  of  insect  life,  with  which,  by  reason 
of  the  animal  being  half  domesticated,  we  happen  to  be  better  acquainted 
than  we  are  with  that  of  others.  The  whole  winged  insect  tribe  it  is 
probable,  are  equally  intent  upon  their  proper  employments,  and,  under 
every  variety  of  constitution,  gratified,  and  perhaps  equally  gratified,  by 
the  offices  which  the  author  of  their  nature  has  assigned  to  them.  But 
the  atmosphere  is  not  the  only  scene  of  enjoyment  for  the  insect  race. 
Plants  are  covered  with  aphides,  greedily  sucking  their  juices,  and  con- 
stantly, as  it  should  seem,  in  the  act  of  sucking.  It  cannot  be  doubted 
but  that  this  is  a  state  of  gratification.  What  else  should  fix  them  so 
close  to  the  operation,  and  so  long  ?  Other  species  are  running  about 
with  an  alacrity  in  their  motions  which  carries  with  it  every  mark  of 
pleasure.     Large  patches  of  ground  are  sometimes  half  covered  with 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES.  417 

these  brisk  and  sprightly  natures.  If  we  look  to  what  the  waters  pro- 
duce,  shoals  of  the  fry  of  fish  frequent  the  margins  of  rivers,  of  lakes, 
and  of  the  sea  itself.  These  are  so  happy  that  they  know  not  what  to 
do  with  themselves.  Their  attitudes,  their  vivacity,  their  leaps  out  of 
the  water,  their  frolics  in  it,  (which  I  have  noticed  a  thousand  times  with 
equal  attention  and  amusement,)  all  conduce  to  show  their  excess  of 
spirits,  and  are  simply  the  effects  of  that  excess. 

"  At  this  moment,  in  every  given  moment  of  time,  how  many  myriads  of 
animals  are  eating  their  food,  gratifying  their  appetites,  ruminating  in  their 
holes,  accomplishing  their  wishes,  pursuing  their  pleasures,  taking  their 
pastimes  !  In  each  individual  how  many  things  must  go  right  for  it  to  be 
at  ease ;  yet  how  large  a  proportion  out  of  every  species  are  so  in  every 
assignable  instant !  Throughout  the  whole  of  life,  as  it  is  diffused  in 
nature,  and  as  far  as  we  are  acquainted  with  it,  looking  to  the  average, 
of  sensations,  the  plurality  and  the  preponderancy  is  in  favour  of 
happiness  by  a  vast  excess.  In  our  own  species,  in  which  perhaps  tha. 
assertion  may  be  more  questionable  than  in  any  other,  the  prepollency 
of  good  over  evil,  of  health  for  example,  and  ease,  over  pain  and  distress* 
is  evinced  by  the  very  notice  which  calamities  excite.  What  inquiries 
does  the  sickness  of  our  friends  produce  !  What  conversation  theiir  mis-,, 
fortunes  !  This  shows  that  the  common  course  of  things  is  in  favour  of. 
happiness  ;  that  happiness  is  the  rule,  misery  the  exception.  Were  the 
order  reversed,  our  attention  would  be  called  to  examples  of  health  and 
competency  instead  of  disease  and  want."  (Foley's  Natural  Theology.') 

Various  alleviations  of  positive  evils,  and  their  being  connected  with 
beneficial  ends,  are  also  to  be  taken  into  consideration.  Pain  teaches 
vigilance  and  caution,  and  renders  its  remission  in  a  state  of  health  a 
source  of  higher  enjoyment.  For  numerous  diseases  also,  remedies  are, 
by  the  providence  of  God,  and  his  blessing  upon  the  researches  of  man, 
established.  The  process  of  mortal  diseases  has  the  effect  of  mitigating 
the  natural  horror  we  have  of  death.  Sorrows  and  separations  are 
smoothed  by  time.  The  necessity  of  labour  obliges  us  to  occupy  time 
usefully,  which  is  both  a  source  of  enjoyment,  and  the  means  of  prevent- 
ing  much  mischief  in  a  world  of  corrupt  and  ill-inclined  men  ;  and  fami- 
liarity and  habit  render  many  circumstances  and  inconveniences  tolerable, 
which,  at  first  sight,  we  conceive  to  be  necessarily  the  sources  of  wretch- 
edness. In  all  this,  there  is  surely  an  ample  proof  and  an  adorable 
display  of  the  Divine  benevolence. 

In  considering  the  actual  existence  of  evils  in  the  world,  as  it  affects 
the  question  of  the  goodness  of  God,  we  must  also  make  a  distinction 
between  those  evils  which  are  self  inflicted,  and  those  which  are  inevit- 
able. The  question  of  the  reconcilableness  of  the  permission  of  evil 
with  the  goodness  of  God,  will  be  distinctly  considered  ;  but  waiving 
this  for  the  moment,  nothing  can  be  more  obvious  than  that  man  him. 

Vol.  I.  27 


418  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

self  is  chargeable  with  by  far  the  largest  share  of  the  miseries  of  the 
present  life,  and  that  they  draw  no  cloud  over  the  splendour  of  universal 
goodness.  View  men  collectively.  Sin,  as  a  ruling  habit,  is  not  neces- 
sary. The  means  of  repressing  its  inward  motions,  and  restraining  its 
outward  acts,  are  or  have  been  furnished  to  all  mankind ;  and  yet  were 
all  those  miseries  which  are  the  effects  of  voluntary  vice  removed,  how 
little  comparatively  would  remain  to  be  complained  of  in  the  world ! 
Oppressive  governments,  private  wrongs,  wars,  and  all  their  consequent 
evils,  would  disappear.  Peace,  security,  and  industry,  would  cover  the 
earth  with  fruits,  in  sufficient  abundance  for  all ;  and  for  accidental  wants, 
the  helpless,  sick,  and  aged,  would  find  a  prompt  supply  in  the  charity  of 
others.  Regulated  passions,  and  an  approving  conscience  would  create 
benevolent  tempers,  and  these  would  displace  inward  disquiet  with  inward 
peace.  Disease  would  remain,  accidents  to  life  and  limb  occur,  death 
would  ensue ;  but  diseases  would  in  consequence  of  temperance  be  less 
frequent  and  formidable,  men  would  ordinarily  attain  a  peaceful  age, 
and  sink  into  the  grave  by  silent  decay.  Beside  the  removal  of  so  many 
evils,  how  greatly  would  the  sum  of  positive  happiness  be  increased ! 
Intellectual  improvement  would  yield  the  pleasures  of  knowledge  ;  arts 
would  multiply  the  comforts,  and  mitigate  many  of  the  most  wasting 
toils  of  life ;  general  benevolence  would  unite  men  in  warm  affections 
and  friendship^,  productive  of  innumerable  reciprocal  offices  of  kind- 
ness ;  piety  would  crown  all  with  the  pleasures  of  devotion,  the  removal 
of  the  fear  of  death,  and  the  hope  of  a  still  better  state  of  being.  All 
this  is  possible.  If  it  is  not  actual,  it  is  the  fault  of  the  human  race,  not 
of  their  Maker  and  Redeemer  ;  and  his  goodness  is  not,  therefore,  to  be 
questioned,  because  they  are  perverse. 

But  let  the  world  remain  as  it  is,  with  all  its  self-inflicted  evils,  and  let 
the  case  of  an  individual  only  be  considered,  with  reference  to  the  number 
of  existing  evils,  from  which,  by  the  merciful  provision  of  the  grace  of  God 
he  may  entirely  escape,  and  of  those  which  it  is  put  into  his  power  to 
mitigate,  and  even  to  convert  to  his  benefit.  It  cannot  be  doubted  as  to 
any  individual  around  us,  but  that  he  may  escape  from  the  practice  and  the 
consequence  of  every  kind  of  vice,  and  experience  the  renewing  effects  of 
Christianity — that  he  may  be  justified  by  faith,  adopted  into  the  family  of 
God,  receive  the  hallowing  influences  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  henceforth 
walk,  not  after  the  flesh,  but  after  the  Spirit.  Why  do  men  who  profess 
to  believe  in  Christianity,  when  employed  in  writing  systems  of  "  Natural 
Theology,"  which  oblige  them  to  reason  on  the  Divine  goodness,  and  to 
meet  objections  to  it,  forget  this,  or  transfer  to  some  other  branch  of 
theology  what  is  so  vital  to  their  own  argument  ?  Here  the  benevolence  of 
God  to  man  comes  forth  in  all  its  brightness,  and  throws  its  illustrations 
upon  his  dealings  with  man.  What,  in  this  case,  would  be  the  quantum  of 
evil  left  to  be  suffered  by  this  individual,  morally  so  restored  and  so 


6KCONI).]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  41P 

regenerated  ?  No  evils,  which  are  the  consequences  of  personal  vice, 
often  a  long  and  fearful  train.  No  inward  disquiet,  the  effect  of  guilty 
or  foolish  passions,  another  pregnant  source  of  misery.  No  restless 
pining  of  spirit  after  an  unknown  good,  creating  a  distaste  to  present 
innocent  enjoyments — he  has  found  that  good  in  the  favour  and  friend- 
ship of  God.  No  discontent  with  the  allotments  of  Providence — he  has 
been  taught  a  peaceful  submission.  No  irritable  restlessness  under  his 
sufferings  and  sorrows, — "  in  patience  he  possesses  his  soul."  No  fear- 
ful  apprehension  of  the  future — he  knows  that  there  is  a  guiding  eye, 
and  a  supporting  hand  above,  employed  in  all  his  concerns.  No  torment, 
ing  anxiety  as  to  life  or  death — "he  has  a  lively  hope"  of  an  inheritance 
in  heaven.  What  then  of  evil  remains  to  him  but  the  common  afflictions 
of  life,  all  of  which  he  feels,  but  does  not  sink  under,  and  which,  as  they 
exercise,  improve  his  virtues,  and  by  rendering  them  more  exemplary 
and  influential  to  others,  are  converted  into  ultimate  benefits.  Into  this 
state  any  individual  may  be  raised ;  and  what  is  thus  made  possible  to 
us  by  Divine  goodness  is  of  that  attribute  an  adorable  manifestation. 

These  views,  however,  while  they  remove  the  weight  of  any  objections 
which  may  be  made  to  the  benevolence  of  the  Divine  character,  taken 
from  the  existence  of  actual  evils  in  the  world,  are  at  as  great  a  distance 
as  possible  from  that  theory  on  this  subject  which  has  been  denominated 
Optimism.  This  opinion  is,  briefly,  not  that  the  present  system  of  being 
is  the  best  that  might  be  conceived ;  but  the  best  which  the  nature  of 
tilings  would  admit  of.  That  between  not  creating  at  all,  and  creating 
material,  and  sentient,  and  rational  beings,  as  we  find  them  now  circum- 
stanced, and  with  their  present  qualities,  there  was  no  choice.  Accord- 
ingly, with  respect  to  natural  evils,  the  Optimists  appear  to  have  revived 
the  opinion  of  the  oriental  and  Grecian  schools,  that  matter  has  in  it  an 
inherent  defect  and  tendency  to  disorder,  which  baffled  the  skill  of  the 
great  Artificer  himself  to  form  it  into  a  perfect  world  ;  and  that  moral 
evil  as  necessarily  follows  from  finite,  and  therefore  imperfect,  natures. 
No  imputation,  they  infer,  can  be  cast  upon  the  Creator,  whose  good- 
ness,  they  contend,  is  abundantly  manifest  in  correcting  many  of  these 
evils  by  skilful  contrivances,  and  rendering  them,  in  numerous  instances, 
the  occasion  of  good.  Thus  the  storm,  the  earthquake,  and  the  volcano, 
in  the  natural  world,  though  necessary  consequences  of  imperfection  in 
the  very  nature  of  matter,  are  rendered  by  their  effects  beneficial,  in  the 
various  ways  which  natural  philosophy  points  out ;  and  thus  even  moral 
evils  are  necessary  to  give  birth,  and  to  call  into  exercise  the  opposite 
qualities  of  virtue,  which  but  for  them  could  have  no  exercise ;  e.  g.  if  no 
injuries  were  inflicted,  there  could  be  no  place  for  the  virtue  of  forgive- 
ness. To  this  also  is  added  the  doctrine  of  general  laws  ;  according  to 
which,  they  argue,  the  universe  must  be  conducted  ;  but  that,  however 
well  set  and  constituted  general  laws  may  be,  they  will  often  thwart  and 


420  THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES.  [PART 

cross  one  another  ;  and  that  from  thence  particular  inconveniencies  will 
arise.  The  constitution  of  things  is,  however,  good  on  the  whole,  and 
that  is  all  which  can  be  required. 

The  apology  for  the  Divine  goodness  afforded  by  such  an  hypothesis, 
will  not  be  accepted  by  those  most  anxious  to  defend  this  attribute  from 
Atheistic  cavils  ;  and  though  it  has  had  its  advocates  among  some  who 
have  professed  respect  for  the  Scriptures,  yet  it  could  never  have  been 
adopted  by  them,  had  they  not  been  too  regardless  of  the  light  which  they 
cast  upon  these  subjects,  and  been  led  astray  by  the  vain  project  of  con- 
structing  perfect  systems  of  natural  religion,  and  by  attempting  to  unite 
the  difficulties  which  arise  out  of  them,  by  the  aid  of  unassisted  reason. 
The  very  principle  of  this  hypothesis,  that  the  nature  of  things  did  not 
admit  of  a  better  world,  implies  a  very  unworthy  notion  of  God.  It  was 
pardonable  in  the  ancient  advocates  of  the  eternity  of  matter,  to  ascribe 
to  it  an  essential  imperfection,  and  inseparable  evil  qualities  ;  but  if  the 
doctrine  of  creation  in  the  proper  sense  be  allowed,  the  omnipotence 
which  could  bring  matter  out  of  nothing,  was  just  as  able  to  invest  it  with 
good  as  with  evil  qualities ;  and  he  who  arranged  it  to  produce  so  much 
beauty,  harmony,  security,  and  benefit,  as  we  actually  find  in  the  world, 
could  be  at  no  loss  to  render  his  work  perfect  in  every  respect,  and 
needed  not  the  balancings  and  counteractions  of  one  evil  against 
another  to  effect  his  benevolent  purposes.  Accordingly,  in  fact,  we 
find,  that  when  God  had  finished  his  work,  he  pronounced  it  not  merely 
good  comparatively ;  but  "  very  good,"  or  good  absolutely.  Nor  is  it 
true  that,  in  the  moral  world,  vice  must  necessarily  exist  in  order  to 
virtue  ;  and  that,  if  we  value  the  one,  we  must  in  the  nature  of  things  be 
content  to  take  it  with  the  other.  We  are  told,  indeed,  that  no  forgive, 
yiess  could  be  exercised  by  one  human  being,  if  injury  were  not  inflicted 
by  another ;  no  meekness  could  be  displayed,  were  there  no  anger ;  no 
long  suffering  were  there  no  perverseness,  &c.  But  the  fallacy  lies  in 
separating  the  acts  of  virtue,  from  the  principles  of  virtue.  All  the 
above  instances  may  be  reduced  to  one  principle  of  benevolence,  which 
may  exist  in  as  high  a  degree,  when  never  called  forth  by  such  occa- 
sions ;  and  express  itself  in  acts  quite  as  explicit,  in  a  state  of  society 
from  which  sin  is  excluded.  There  are,  for  instance,  according  to 
Scripture,  beings,  called  angels,  who  kept  their  first  state,  and  have 
never  sinned.  In  such  a  society  as  theirs,  composed  probably  of  different 
orders  of  intelligences,  some  more  advanced  in  knowledge  than  others, 
some  with  higher,  and  others  with  lower  degrees  of  perfection,  "  as 
one  star  differeth  from  another  star  in  glory ;"  how  many  exercises 
of  humility  and  condescension ;  how  much  kind  communication  of 
knowledge  by  some,  and  meek  and  grateful  reception  of  it  by  others ; 
how  many  different  ways  in  which  a  perfect  purity,  and  a  perfect  love, 
and  a  perfect  freedom  from  selfishness  may  display  themselves !   When, 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.        '  421 

therefore,  the  principle  of  universal  benevolence  may  be  conceived  to 
display  itself  so  strikingly,  in  a  sinless  state  of  society,  does  it  need 
injury  to  call  it  forth  in  the  visible  form  of  forgiveness ;  anger,  in  the 
form  of  meekness ;  obstinacy,  in  the  form  of  forbearance  1  Certainly 
not ;  and  it  demands  no  effort  of  mind  to  infer,  that  did  such  occasions 
exist  to  call  for  it,  it  would  be  developed,  not  only  in  the  particular 
modes  just  named,  but  in  every  other. 

In  opposition  to  the  view  taken  by  such  theorists,  we  may  deny,  that 
"  whatever  is,  is  best."  We  can  not  only  conceive  of  a  better  state  of  things 
as  possible ;  but  can  show  that  the  evils  which  actually  exist,  whether 
natural  or  moral,  do  not  exist  necessarily.  It  is,  indeed,  a  proof  of  the 
Divine  goodness  to  bring  good  out  of  evil ;  to  make  storms  and  earth- 
quakes, which  are  destructive  to  the  few,  beneficial  to  the  many  ;  to 
render  the  sins  of  men  occasions  to  try,  exercise,  and  perfect,  various 
virtues  in  the  good  ;  but  if  man  had  been  under  an  unmixed  dispensa- 
tion of  mercy,  all  these  ends  might  obviously  have  been  accomplished, 
independent  of  the  existence  of  evils,  natural  or  moral,  in  any  degree. 
The  true  key  to  the  whole  subject  is  furnished  by  Divine  revelation. 
Sin  has  entered  the  world.  Man  is  under  the  displeasure  of  his  Maker. 
Hence  we  see  natural  evils,  and  punitive  acts  of  the  Divine  administra- 
tion, not  because  God  is  not  good,  but  because  he  is  just  as  well  as 
good.  But  man  is  not  left  under  condemnation  ;  through  the  propitiation 
made  for  his  sins  by  the  sacrifice  of  Christ,  he  is  a  subject  of  mercy. 
He  is  under  correction,  not  under, un mingled  wrath,  and  hence  the  dis- 
plays of  the  Divine  benevolence,  which  the  world  and  the  acts  of  Provi- 
dence every  where,  and  throughout  all  ages,  present ;  and  in  proportion 
as  good  predominates,  kindness  triumphs  against  severity,  and  the  Divine 
character  is  emblazoned  in  our  sight  as  one  that  "  ddighteth  in  mercy." 

To  this  representation  of  the  actual  relations  in  which  the  human  race 
stand  to  God,  and  to  no  other  hypothesis,  the  state  of  the  world  exactly 
answers,  and  thus  affords  an  obvious  and  powerful  confirmation  of  the 
doctrine  of  revelation.  This  view  has  been  drawn  out  at  length  by  a 
late  ingenious  writer,  (Gisborne's  Testimony  of  Natural  Philosophy  to 
Christianity,)  and  in  many  instances,  with  great  felicity  of  illustration. 
A  few  extracts  will  show  the  course  of  the  argument.  The  first  relates 
to  the  convulsions  which  have  been  undergone  by  the  globe  itself. 

"  Suppose  a  traveller,  penetrating  into  regions  placed  beyond  the  sphere 
of  his  antecedent  knowledge,  suddenly  to  find  himself  on  the  confines 
of  a  city  lying  in  ruins.  Suppose  the  desolation,  though  bearing  marks 
of  ancient  date,  to  manifest  unequivocal  proofs  that  it  was  not  effected 
by  the  mouldering  hand  of  time,  but  has  been  the  result  of  design  and  of 
violence.  Dislocated  arches,  pendant  battlements,  interrupted  aqueducts, 
towers  undermined  and  subverted,  while  they  record  the  primeval 
strength  and  magnificence  of  the  structures,  proclaim  the  determined 


422  .       THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PARI 

purpose,  the  persevering  exertions,  with  which  force  had  urged  forward 
the  work  of  destruction.  Suppose  farther,  that  in  surveying  the  reliques 
which  have  survived  through  the  silent  lapse  of  ages,  the  stranger  dis- 
covers a  present  race  of  inhabitants,  who  have  reared  their  huts  amidst 
the  wreck.  He  inquires  the  history  of  the  scene  before  him.  He  is 
informed,  that  the  city,  once  distinguished  by  splendour,  by  beauty,  by 
every  arrangement  and  provision  for  the  security,  the  accommodation, 
the  happiness  of  its  occupiers,  was  reduced  to  its  existing  situation  by 
the  deliberate  resolve  and  act  of  its  own  lawful  sovereign,  the  very 
sovereign  by  whom  it  had  been  erected,  the  emperor  of  that  part  of  the 
world.  '  Was  he  a  ferocious  tyrant  ?' — '  No,'  is  the  universal  reply. 
'  He  was  a  monarch  pre-eminent  for  consistency,  forbearance,  and  be- 
nignity.'— 'Was  his  judgment  blinded,  or  misled,  by  erroneous  intelli- 
gence as  to  the  plans  and  proceedings  of  his  subjects  V — <  He  knew  every 
thing  but  too  well.  He  understood  with  undeviating  accuracy  ;  he 
decided  with  unimpeachable  wisdom.' — '  The  case,  then,'  cries  the  tra- 
veller, '  is  plain  :  the  conclusion  is  inevitable.  Your  forefathers  assuredly 
were  ungrateful  rebels ;  and  thus  plucked  down  devastation  upon  their 
city,  themselves,  and  their  posterity.' 

"  The  actual  appearance  of  the  globe  on  which  we  dwell,  is  in  strict 
analogy  with  the  picture  of  our  hypothetical  city.       / 

"The  earth,  whatever  may  be  the  configuration,, whatever  may  have 
been  the  perturbation  or  the  repose,  of  its  deep  and  hidden  recesses,  is,  in 
its  superior  strata,  a  mass  of  ruins.  It,  is  not  of  one  land,  or  of  one  clime, 
that  the  assertion  is  made  ;  but  of  all  lands,  but  of  all  climes,  but  of  the 
earth  universally.  Wherever  the  steep  front  of  mountains  discloses  their 
interior  construction ;  wherever  native  caverns  and  fissures  reveal  the 
disposition  of  the  component  materials ;  wherever  the  operations  of  the 
miner  have  pierced  the  successive  layers,  beneath  which  coal  or  metal 
is  deposited :  convulsion  and  disruption  and  disarrangement  are  visible. 
Though  the  smoothness  and  uniformity  which  the  hand  of  cultivation 
expands  over  some  portions  of  the  globe,  and  the  shaggy  mantle  of 
thickets  and  forests  with  which  nature  veils  other  portions  hitherto  unre- 
plenished  and  unsubdued  by  mankind,  combine  to  obscure  the  vestiges 
of  the  shocks  which  our  planet  has  experienced  ;  as  a  fair  skin  and 
ornamental  attire  conceal  internal  fractures  and  disorganizations  in  the 
human  frame  :  to  the  eye  of  the  contemplative  enquirer  exploring  the 
surface  of  the  earth,  there  is  apparent  many  a  scar  testifying  ancient 
concussion  and  collision,  and  laceration  ;  and  many  a  wound  yet  unheal- 
ed, and  opening  into  unknown  and  unfathomable  profundity. 

"  From  this  universal  scene  of  confusion  in  the  superior  strata  of  the 
earth,  let  the  student  of  natural  theology  turn  his  thoughts  to  the  gene- 
ral works  of  God.  What  are  the  characteristics  in  which  those  works, 
however  varied  in  their  kinds,  in  their  magnitudes,  and  in  their  pur 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  423 

poses,  obviously  agree  ?  What  are  the  characteristics  by  which  they 
are  all,  with  manifest  intention,  imprinted  ?— Order  and  harmony.  In 
every  mode  of  animal  life,  from  the  human  frame  down  to  the  atomic 
and  unsuspected  existences  in  water,  which  have  been  rendered  visible 
by  the  lenses  of  modern  science  ;  in  the  vegetable  world,  from  the  cedar 
of  Lebanon  to  the  hyssop  by  the  wall ;  from  the  hyssop  by  the  wall  to 
the  minutest  plant  discernible  under  the  microscope  :  in  the  crystaliza. 
tions  of  the  mineral  kingdom,  of  its  metals,  of  its  salts,  of  its  spars,  of 
its  gems  :  in  the  revolution  of  the  heavenly  bodies,  and  in  the  conse- 
quent reciprocations  of  day,  and  night,  and  seasons  : — all  is  regularity. 
In  the  works  of  God,  order  and  harmony  are  the  rule ;  irregularity  and 
confusion  form  the  rare  exception.  Under  the  Divine  government,  an 
exception  so  portentous  as  that  which  we  have  been  contemplating,  a 
transformation  from  order  and  harmony  to  irregularity  and  confusion 
involving  the  integuments  of  a  world,  cannot  be  attributed  to  any  circum- 
stance which,  in  common  language,  we  term  fortuitous.  It  proclaims 
itself  to  have  been  owing  to  a  moral  cause ;  to  a  moral  cause  demand- 
ing so  vast  and  extraordinary  an  effect ;  a  moral  cause  which  cannot 
but  be  deeply  interesting  to  man,  cannot  but  be  closely  connected  with 
man,  the  sole  being  on  the  face  of  this  globe  who  is  invested  with  moral 
agency ;  the  sole  being,  therefore,  on  this  globe  who  is  subjected  to 
moral  responsibility  ;  the  sole  being  on  this  globe  whose  moral  conduct 
can  have  had  a  particle  of  even  indirect  influence  on  the  general  condi- 
tion of  the  globe  which  he  inhabits." 

Another  instance  is  supplied  from  the  general  deluge.  After  proving 
from  a  number  of  geological  facts,  that  such  a  phenomenon  must  have 
occurred,  the  author  observes  : — 

"  Thus,  while  the  exterior  strata  of  the  earth,  by  recording  in  charac- 
ters unquestionable  and  indelible  the  fact  of  a  primeval  and  penal  deluge, 
attest  from  age  to  age  the  holiness  and  the  justice  of  God ;  the  form 
and  aspect  of  its  surface  are,  with  equal  clearness,  testifying  from  gene- 
ration to  generation  his  inherent  and  not  less  glorious  attribute  of  mercy. 
For  they  prove  that  the  very  deluge,  in  its  irruption  employed  as  the 
instrument  in  his  dispensation  of  vengeance  to  destroy  a  guilty  world, 
was,  in  its  recess  so  regulated  by  him  as  to  the  varying  rapidity  of  its 
subsidence,  so  directed  by  him  throughout  all  its  consecutive  operations, 
as  to  prepare  the  desolated  globe  for  the  reception  of  a  restored  succes- 
sion of  inhabitants ;  and  so  to  arrange  the  surface,  as  to  adapt  it  in 
every  climate  for  the  sustenance  of  the  animals,  for  the  production  of 
the  trees  and  plants,  and  for  the  growth  and  commodious  cultivation  of 
the  grain  and  the  fruits,  of  which  man,  in  that  particular  region,  would 
chiefly  stand  in  need. 

"During  the  retirement  of  the  waters,  when  a  barrier  of  a  rocky 
stratum,  sufficiently  strong  for  resistance,  crossed  the  line  of  descent,  a 


424  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

lake  would  be  in  consequence  formed.  These  memorials  of  the  dominion 
of  that  element  which  had  recently  been  so  destructive,  remain  also  as 
memorials  of  the  mercy  of  the  Restorer  of  nature  ;  and  by  their  own 
living  splendours,  and  by  the  beauty  and  the  grandeur  of  their  bounda- 
ries, are  the  most  exquisite  ornaments  of  the  scenes  in  which  we  dwell. 
"  Would  you  receive  and  cherish  a  strong  impression  of  the  extent  of 
the  mercy  displayed  in  the  renewal  of  the  face  of  the  earth  ?  Would 
you  endeavour  to  render  justice  to  the  subject  ?  Contemplate  the  num- 
ber of  the  diversified  effects  on  the  surface  of  the  globe,  which  have 
been  wrought,  arranged,  and  harmonized  by  the  Divine  benignity  through 
the  agency  of  the  retiring  deluge  :  and  combine  in  your  survey  of  them 
the  two  connected  characteristics,  utility  and  beauty ;  utility  to  meet 
the  necessities  and  multiply  the  comforts  of  man ;  beauty  graciously 
superadded  to  cheer  his  eye  and  delight  his  heart,  with  which  the 
general  aspect  of  nature  is  impressed.  Observe  the  mountains,  of  every 
form  and  of  every  elevation.  See  them  now  rising  in  bold  acclivities ; 
now  accumulated  in  a  succession  of  gracefully  sweeping  ascents ;  now 
towering  in  rugged  precipices ;  now  rearing  above  the  clouds  their  spiry 
pinnacles  glittering  with  perpetual  snow.  View  their  sides  now  dark- 
ened with  unbounded  forests  ;  now  spreading  to  the  sun  their  ample 
slopes  covered  with  herbage,  the  summer  resorts  of  the  flocks  and  the 
herds  of  subjacent  regions ;  now  scooped  into  sheltered  concavities ; 
now  enclosing  within  their  ranges  glens  green  as  the  emerald,  and 
watered  by  streams  pellucid  and  sparkling  as  crystal.  Pursue  these 
glens  as  they  unite  and  enlarge  themselves ;  mark  their  rivulets  uniting 
and  enlarging  themselves  also ;  until  the  glen  becomes  a  valley,  and  the 
valley  expands  into  a  rich  vale  or  a  spacious  plain,  each  varied  and 
bounded  by  hills,  and  knolls,  and  gentle  uplands,  in  some  parts  chiefly 
adapted  for  pasturage,  in  others  for  the  plough ;  each  intersected  and 
refreshed  by  rivers  flowing  onward  from  country  to  country,  and  with 
streams  continually  augmented  by  collateral  accessions,  until  they  are 
finally  lost  in  the  ocean.  There  new  modes  of  beauty  are  awaiting  the 
beholder ;  winding  shores,  bold  capes,  rugged  promontories,  deeply  in- 
dented bays,  harbours  penetrating  far  inland  and  protected  from  every 
blast.  But  in  these  vast  and  magnificent  features  of  nature,  the  gracious 
Author  of  all  things  has  not  exhausted  the  attractions  with  which  he 
.purposed  to  decorate  inanimate  objects.  He  pours  forth  beauties  in 
^detail,  and  with  unsparing  prodigality  of  munificence,  and  for  whatever 
other  reas  >ns,  for  human  gratification  also,  on  the  several  portions,  how- 
ever inconsiderable,  of  which  the  larger  component  parts  of  the  splendid 
whole  consist :  on  the  rock,  on  the  fractured  stone,  on  the  thicket,  on 
the  single  tree,  on  the  bush,  on  the  mossy  bank,  on  the  plant,  on  the 
flower,  on  the  leaf.  Of  all  these  works  of  his  wondrous  hand,  he  is 
continually  varying  and   enhancing  the  attractions  by  the  diversified 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  425 

modes  and  accessions  of  beauty  with  which  he  invests  them,  by  the 
alterations  of  seasons,  by  the  countless  and  rapid  changes  of  light  and 
shade,  by  the  characteristic  effects  of  the  rising,  the  meridian,  the  setting 
sun,  by  the  subdued  glow  of  twilight,  by  the  soft  radiance  of  the  moon ; 
and  by  the  hues,  the  actions,  and  the  music  of  the  animal  tribes  with 
which  they  are  peopled." 

The  human  frame  supplies  another  illustration : — 

"  Consider  the  human  frame,  naked  against  the  elements,  instantly 
susceptible  of  every  external  impression ;  relatively  weak,  unarmed ; 
during  infancy  totally  helpless ;  helpless  again  in  old  age ;  occupying 
a  long  period  in  its  progress  of  growth  to  its  destined  size  and  strength ; 
ungifted  with  swiftness  to  escape  the  wild  beast  of  the  forest ;  incapable, 
when  overtaken,  of  resisting  him ;  requiring  daily  supplies  of  food,  and 
of  beverage,  not  merely  that  sense  may  not  be  ungratified,  not  merely 
that  vigour  may  not  decline,  but  that  closely  impending  destruction  may 
be  delayed.  For  what  state  does  such  a  frame  appear  characteristically 
fitted  ?  For  what  state  does  it  appear  to  have  been  originally  designed  1 
For  a  state  of  innocence  and  security ;  for  a  paradisiacal  state ;  for  a 
state  in  which  all  elements  were  genial,  all  external  impressions  in- 
noxious  ;  a  state  in  which  relative  strength  was  unimportant,  arms  were 
needless ;  in  which  to  be  helpless  was  not  to  be  insecure ;  in  which  the 
wild  beast  of  the  forest  did  not  exist,  or  existed  without  hostility  to  man ; 
a  state  in  which  food  and  beverage  were  either  not  precarious,  or  not 
habitually  and  speedily  indispensable.  Represent  to  yourself  man  as 
innocent,  and  in  consequent  possession  of  the  unclouded  favour  of  his 
God ;  and  then  consider  whether  it  be  probable,  that  a  frame  thus 
adapted  to  a  paradisiacal  state,  thus  designated  by  characteristical  indi- 
cations as  originally  formed  for  a  paradisiacal  state,  would  have  been 
selected  for  the  world  in  which  we  live.  Turn  to  the  contrary  repre- 
sentation ;  a  representation  the  accuracy  of  which  we  have  already 
seen  the  pupil  of  natural  theology  constrained,  by  other  irresistible  testi- 
monies which  she  has  produced,  to  allow :  regard  man  as  having  for- 
feited, by  transgression,  the  Divine  favour,  and  as  placed  by  his  God, 
with  a  view  to  ultimate  possibilities  of  mercy  and  restoration,  in  a  situ- 
ation which,  amidst  tokens  and  means  of  grace,  is  at  present  to  partake 
of  a  penal  character.  For  such  a  situation  ;  for  residence  on  the  exist- 
ing earth  as  the  appointed  scene  of  discipline  at  once  merciful,  moral, 
and  penal ;  what  frame  could  be  more  wisely  calculated  ?  What  frame 
could  be  more  happily  adjusted  to  receive,  and  to  convey,  and  to  aid, 
and  to  continue  the  impressions,  which  if  mercy  and  restoration  are  to 
be  attained,  must  antecedently  be  wrought  into  the  mind  ?  Is  not  such  a 
frame,  in  such  a  world,  a  living  and  a  faithful  witness,  a  constant  and  an 
energetic  remembrancer,  to  natural  reason,  that  man  was  created  holy ; 
that  he  fell  from  obedience ;  that  his  existence  was  continued  for  purposes 


426  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

of  mercy  and  restoration ;  that  he  is  placed  in  his  earthly  abode  under  a 
dispensation  bearing  the  combined  marks  of  attainable  grace,  and  of 
penal  discipline  ?  Is  not  such  a  frame,  in  such  a  world,  a  preparation  for 
the  reception,  and  a  collateral  evidence  to  the  truth,  of  Christianity  ?" 

The  occupations  of  man  furnish  other  instances : — 

"  One  of  his  most  general  and  most  prominent  occupations  will  neces. 
sarily  be  the  cultivation  of  the  ground.  As  the  products  drawn  from 
the  soil  form  the  basis,  not  only  of  human  subsistence,  but  of  the  wealth 
which  expands  itself  in  the  external  comforts  and  ornaments  of  social 
life  ;  we  should  expect  that,  under  a  dispensation  comprehending  means 
and  purposes  of  mercy,  the  rewards  of  agriculture  would  be  found  among 
the  least  uncertain  and  the  most  liberal  of  the  recompenses,  which  Pro- 
vidence holds  forth  to  exertion.  Experience  confirms  the  expectation, 
and  attests  that  man  is  not  rejected  of  his  Creator.  Yet  how  great,  how 
continual  is  the  toil  annexed  to  the  effective  culture  of  the  earth  !  How 
constant  the  anxiety,  lest  redundant  moisture  should  corrupt  the  seed 
under  the  clod ;  or  grubs  and  worms  gnaw  the  root  of  the  rising  plant ; 
or  reptiles  and  insects  devour  the  blade  ;  or  mildew  blast  the  stalk ;  or 
ungenial  seasons  destroy  the  harvest !  How  frequently,  from  these,  and 
other  causes,  are  the  unceasing  labours,  and  the  promising  hopes  of  the 
husbandman  terminated  in  bitter  disappointment !  Agriculture  wears  not, 
in  this  our  planet,  the  characteristics  of  an  occupation  arranged  for  an 
innocent  and  a  fully  favoured  race.  It  displays  to  the  eye  of  natural 
theology  traces  of  the  sentence  pronounced  on  the  first  cultivator,  the 
representative  of  all  who  were  to  succeed  :  '  Cursed  is  the  ground  for 
thy  sake.  Thorns  also  and  thistles  shall  it  bring  forth  to  thee.  In  sor- 
row shalt  thou  eat  of  it  all  the  days  of  thy  life.  In  the  sweat  of  thy  face 
shalt  thou  eat  bread.'  It  bears,  in  its  toils  and  in  its  solicitudes,  plain 
indications  that  man  is  a  sinner. 

"  Observations,  in  substance  corresponding  with  those  which  have 
been  stated  respecting  tillage,  might  be  adduced  concerning  the  care  of 
flocks  and  herds.  The  return  for  labour  in  this  branch  of  employment 
is,  in  the  ordinary  course  of  events,  sufficient,  as  in  agriculture,  both  to 
excite  and  sustain  exertion,  and  to  intimate  the  merciful  benignity  with 
which  the  Deity  looks  upon  mankind.  But  the  fatiguing  superintend- 
ence, the  watchful  anxiety,  the  risks  of  loss  by  disease,  by  casualties, 
by  malicious  injury  and  depredation,  and,  in  many  countries,  by  the 
inroads  of  wild  beasts,  conspire  in  their  amount  to  enforce  the  truth 
which  has  been  inculcated.  They  inscribe  the  page  of  natural  theology 
with  the  Scriptural  denunciation :  that  the  labour  and  the  pain  assigned 
to  man  are  consequences  of  transgression. 

"  Another  of  the  principal  occupations  of  man  consists  in  the  extrac- 
tion of  the  mineral  contents  of  the  earth,  and  in  the  reduction  of  the 
metals  into  the  states  and  the  forms  requisite  for  use.     On  the  toil,  the 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES.  427 

irksomeness,  and  the  dangers  attendant  on  these  modes  of  life,  it  is 
unnecessary  to  enlarge.  They  have  been  discussed ;  and  have  been 
shown  to  be  deeply  stamped  with  a  penal  character  appropriate  to  a 
fallen  and  guilty  race. 

"  Another  and  a  very  comprehensive  range  of  employment  consists  in 
the  fabrication  of  manufactures.  These,  in  correspondence  with  the 
necessities,  the  reasonable  desires,  the  self  indulgence,  the  ingenuity, 
the  caprices,  and  the  luxury  of  individuals,  are  diversified  beyond  enu- 
meration. But  it  may  be  affirmed  generally  concerning  manufactures 
in  extensive  demand,  that,  in  common  with  the  occupations  which  have 
already  been  examined,  they  impose  a  pressure  of  labour,  an  amount  of 
solicitude,  and  a  risk  of  disappointment,  such  as  we  cannot  represent  to 
ourselves  as  probable  in  the  case  of  beings  holy  in  their  nature,  and 
thoroughly  approved  by  their  God.  The  tendency  also  of  such  manu- 
factures is  to  draw  together  numerous  operators  within  a  small  com- 
pass ;  to  crowd  them  into  close  workshops  and  inadequate  habitations ; 
to  injure  their  health  by  contaminated  air,  and  their  morals  by  conta- 
gious society. 

"  Another  line  of  exertion  is  constituted  by  trade,  subdivided  into  its 
two  branches,  domestic  traffic  and  foreign  commerce.  Both,  at  the 
same  time  that  they  are  permitted  in  common  with  the  modes  of  occu- 
pation already  named  to  anticipate,  on  the  whole,  by  the  appointment  of 
Providence,  such  a  recompense  as  proves  adequate  to  the  ordinary  ex- 
citement of  industry,  and  to  the  acquisition  of  the  moderate  comforts  of 
life ;  are  marked  with  the  penal  impress  of  toil,  anxiety,  and  disappoint- 
ment. Natural  theology  still  reads  the  sentence,  '  In  the  sweat  of  thy 
face,  in  sorrow,  shalt  thou  eat  bread.'  Vigilance  is  frustrated  by  the 
carelessness  of  associates,  or  profit  intercepted  by  their  iniquity.  Up- 
rightness in  the  dealer  becomes  the  prey  of  fraud  in  the  customer.  The 
ship  is  wrecked  on  a  distant  shore,  or  sinks  with  the  cargo,  and  with  the 
merchant  in  the  ocean."  (Testimony  of  Nature,  <$*c.) 

Numerous  other  examples  are  furnished  by  the  author,  and  might  be 
easily  enlarged,  so  abundant  is  the  evidence ;  and  the  whole  directly 
connects  itself  with  the  subject  under  consideration.  The  voluntary 
goodness  of  God  is  not  impugned  by  the  various  evils  which  exist  in  the 
world,  for  we  see  them  accounted  for  by  the  actual  corrupt  state  of  man, 
and  by  a  righteous  administration,  by  which  goodness  must  be  controlled 
to  be  an  attribute  worthy  of  God.  It  would  otherwise  be  weakness,  a 
blind  passion,  and  not  a  wisely-regulated  affection.  On  the  other  hand, 
there  is  clearly  no  reason  for  resorting  to  notions  of  necessity,  and  defects 
in  the  essential  nature  of  created  things,  to  prove  that  God  is  good ;  or, 
in  other  words,  according  to  the  hypothesis  above  stated,  as  good  as  the 
stubbornness  of  matter,  and  the  necessity  that  vice  and  misery  should 
exist,  would  allow.     His  goodness  is  limited  by  moral,  not  by  physical 


428  THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES.  tPART 

reasons,  but  still,  considering  the  globe  as  the  residence  of  a  fallen  and 
perverse  race,  that  glorious  atlribute  is  heightened  in  its  lustre  by  this 
very  circumstance ;  it  arrays  itself  before  us  in  all  its  affecting  attributes 
of  mercy,  pity,  long  suffering,  mitigation,  and  remission.  It  is  goodness 
poured  forth  in  the  richest  liberality,  where  moral  order  permits  its  un- 
restrained flow ;  and  it  is  never  withheld  but  where  the  general  benefit 
demands  it.  Penal  acts  never  go  beyond  the  rigid  necessity  of  the  case  ; 
acts  of  mercy  rise  infinitely  above  all  desert. 

The  above  observations  all  suppose  moral  evil  actually  in  the  world, 
and  infecting  the  whole  human  race  ;  but  the  origin  of  evil  requires  dis- 
tinct consideration.  How  did  moral  evil  arise,  and  how  is  this  circum- 
stance compatible  with  the  Divine  goodness  ?  However  these  questions 
may  be  answered,  it  is  to  be  remembered  that  though  the  answer  should 
leave  some  difficulties  in  full  force,  they  do  not  press  exclusively  upon 
the  Scriptures.  Independent  of  the  Bible,  the  fact  is,  that  evil  exists  ; 
and  the  Theist  who  admits  the  existence  of  a  God  of  infinite  goodness, 
has  as  large  a  share  of  the  difficulty  of  reconciling  facts  and  principles 
on  this  subject  as  the  Christian,  but  with  no  advantage  from  that  history 
of  the  introduction  of  sin  into  the  world  which  is  contained  in  the  writ- 
ings of  Moses,  and  none  from  those  alleviating  views  which  are  afforded 
by  the  doctnne  of  the  redemption  of  man  by  Jesus  Christ. 

As  to  the  source  of  evil,  the  following  are  the  leading  opinions  which 
have  been  held.  Necessity,  arising  out  of  the  nature  of  things ;  the 
Manichaan  principle  of  duality,  or  the  existence  of  a  good  and  an  evil 
Deity  ;  the  doctrine  that  God  is  the  efficient  cause  or  author  of  sin ;  and 
finally,  that  evil  is  the  result  of  the  abuse  of  the  moral  freedom  with 
which  rational  and  accountable  creatures  are  endowed.  With  respect 
to  the  first,  as  the  necessity  meant  is  independent  of  God,  it  refutes  itself. 
For  if  all  creatures  are  under  the  influence  of  this  necessity,  and  they 
must  be  under  it  if  it  arise  out  of  the  nature  of  things  itself,  no  virtue 
could  now  exist :  from  the  moment  of  creation  the  deteriorating  prin- 
ciple must  begin  its  operation,  and  go  on  until  all  good  is  extinguished. 
Nor  could  there  be  any  return  from  vice  to  virtue,  since  the  nature  of 
things  would  on  that  supposition  be  counteracted,  which  is  impossible. 

The  second  is  scarcely  worth  notice,  since  no  one  now  advocates  it. 
This  heresy,  which  prevailed  in  several  parts  of  the  Christian  world 
from  the  third  to  the  sixteenth  century,  seems  to  have  been  a  modifica- 
tion of  the  ancient  Magian  doctrine  superadded  to  some  of  the  tenets  of 
Christianity.  Its  leading  principle  was,  that  our  souls  were  made  by 
the  good  principle,  and  our  bodies  by  the  evil  one ;  these  two  principles 
being,  according  to  Maivi,  the  founder  of  the  sect,  co-eternal  and  inde- 
pendent of  each  other.  These  notions  were  supposed  to  afford  an  easy 
explanation  of  the  origin  of  evil,  and  on  that  account  were  zealously 
propagated.     It  was,  however,  overlooked  by  the  advocates  of  this 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL   INSTITUTES.  4i]9 

scheme,  that  it  left  the  difficulty  without  any  alleviation  at  all ;  for  "  it 
is  just  as  repugnant  to  infinite  goodness  to  create  what  it  foresaw  would 
be  spoiled  by  another,  as  to  create  what  would  be  spoiled  by  the  consti- 
tution of  its  nature."  {King's  Origin  of  Evil.) 

The  dogma  which  makes  God  himself  the  efficient  cause,  or  author 
of  sin,  is  direct  blasphemy,  and  it  is  one  of  those  culpable  extravagances 
into  which  men  are  sometimes  betrayed  by  a  blind  attachment  to  some 
favourite  theory.  This  notion  is  found  in  the  writings  of  some  of  the 
most  unguarded  advocates  of  the  Calvinistic  hypothesis,  though  now 
generally  abandoned  by  the  writers  of  that  school.  A  modern  defender 
of  Calvinism  thus  puts  in  his  disclaimer,  "  God  is  not  the  author  of  sin. 
A  Calvinist  who  says  so  I  regard  as  Judas,  and  will  have  no  communion 
with  him."  (4)  The  general  abandonment  of  this  notion,  so  offensive 
and  blamable,  renders  it  unnecessary  to  enter  into  its  refutation.  If 
refutation  were  required  it  would  be  found  in  this,  that  the  first  pair  who 
sinned  were  subjected  to  punishment  for,  and  on  account  of  sin ;  which 
they  could  not  in  justice  have  been,  had  not  their  crime  been  chargeable 
upon  themselves. 

The  last  opinion,  and  that  which  has  been  generally  received  by 
theologians,  is,  that  moral  evil  is  the  result  of  a  voluntary  abuse  of  the 
freedom  of  the  will  in  rational  and  moral  agents  ;  and  that,  as  to  the 
human  race,  the  first  pair  sinned  by  choice,  when  the  power  to  have 
remained  innocent  remained  with  them.  "  Why  is  there  sin  in  the 
world  ?    Because  man  was  created  in  the  image  of  God ;  because  he  is 

(4)  Scott's  Remarks  on  the  Refutation  of  Calvinism. — Few  have  been  so  dar- 
ing, except  the  grosser  Antinomians  of  ancient  and  modern  times.  The  elder 
Calvinists,  though  they  often  made  fearful  approaches  in  their  writings  to  this 
blasphemy,  yet  did  not,  openly  and  directly,  charge  God  with  being  the  author 
of  sin.  This  Arminius,  with  great  candour,  acknowledges ;  but  gives  them  a 
friendly  admonition,  to  renounce  a  doctrine  from  which  this  aspersion  upon  the 
Divine  character  may,  by  a  good  consequence,  be  deduced :  a  caution  not  uncalled 
for  in  the  present  day.  "  Inter  omnes  blasphemias  quro  Deo  impingi  possunt, 
omnium  est  gravissima  qua  author  peccati  statuitur  Deus :  quae  ipsa  non  parum 
exaggeratur,  si  addatur  Deum  idcirco  authorem  esse  peccati  a  creatura  commissi, 
ut  creaturam  in  Beternum  exitium,  quod  illi  jam  ante  citra  respectum  peccati 
destinaverat,  damnaret  etdeduceret:  sic  enim  fuerit  causa  injustitia  homini, 
ut  ipsi  oeternam  miseriam  adferre  posset.  Hanc  blasphemiam  nemo  Deo,  quern 
bonum  concipit,  impinget :  quare  etiam  Manichssi,  pessimi  hoereticorum,  quum 
causam  mali  bono  Deo  adscribere  vererentur,  alium  Deum  et  aliud  principium 
statuerunt,  cui  mali  causam  deputarent.  Qua  de  causa,  nee  ullis  Doctoribus 
reformaturum  Ecclesiarum  jure  impingi  potest,  quod  Deum  authorem  peccati  sta- 
tuant  exprofesso ;  imo  verissimum  est  illos  expresse  id  negare,  et  illam  calumniam 
contra  alios  egregie  confutasse.  Attamen  fieri  potest,  ut  quis  ex  ignorantia 
aliquod  doceat,  ex  quo  bona  consequentia  deducatur,  Deum  per  illam  doctrinam 
statin  authorem  peccati.  Hoc  si  fiat,  turn  quidem  istius  doctrinie  professoribus, 
non  est  impingendum  quod  Deum  authorem  peccati  faciant,  sed  tantum  monendi 
ut  doctrinam  istam,  unue  id  bona  consequentia  deducitur,  deserant  et  abjiciant." 


430  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

not  mere  matter,  a  clod  of  earth,  a  lump  of  clay,  without  sense  or  under- 
standing, but  a  spirit  like  his  Creator ;  a  being  endued  not  only  with 
sense  and  understanding,  but  also  with  a  will  exerting  itself  in  various 
affections.  To  crown  all  the  rest,  he  was  endued  with  liberty,  a  power 
of  directing  his  own  affections  and  actions,  a  capacity  of  determining 
himself,  or  of  choosing  good  and  evil.  Indeed,  had  not  man  been 
endued  with  this,  all  the  rest  would  have  been  of  no  use.  Had  he  not 
been  a  free,  as  well  as  an  intelligent  being,  his  understanding  would  have 
been  as  incapable  of  holiness,  or  any  kind  of  virtue,  as  a  tree  or  a  block 
of  marble.  And  having  this  power,  a  power  of  choosing  good  and  evil, 
he  chose  the  latter,  he  chose  evil.  Thus  «  sin  entered  into  the  world.'  " 
(Wesley's  Sermons.) 

This  account  unquestionably  agrees  with  the  history  of  the  fact  of  the 
fall  and  corruption  of  man.  Like  every  thing  else  in  its  kind,  he  was 
pronounced  "  very  good ;"  he  was  placed  under  a  law  of  obedience, 
which,  if  he  had  not  had  the  power  to  observe  it,  would  have  been  ab- 
surd ;  and  that  he  had  also  the  power  to  violate  it,  is  equally  clear  from 
the  prohibition  under  which  he  was  laid,  and  its  accompanying  penalty. 
The  conclusion  therefore  is,  that "  God  made  man  upright,"  with  power 
to  remain  so,  and,  on  the  contrary,  to  sin  and  fall. 

Nor  was  this  liberty  to  sin  inconsistent  with  that  perfect  purity  and 
moral  perfection  with  which  he  was  endowed  at  his  creation.  Many 
extravagant  descriptions  have  been  indulged  in  by  some  divines  as  to 
the  intellectual  and  moral  endowments  of  the  nature  of  the  first  man, 
which  if  admitted  to  the  full  extent,  would  render  it  difficult  to  conceive 
how  he  could  possibly  have  fallen  by  any  temptations  which  his  circum- 
stances allowed,  or  indeed  how,  in  his  case,  temptation  could  at  all  exist. 
His  state  was  high  and  glorious,  but  it  was  still  a  state  not  of  reward 
but  of  trial,  and  his  endowments  and  perfections  were  therefore  suited 
to  it.  It  is,  indeed,  perhaps  going  much  too  far  to  state,  that  all  created 
rational  beings,  being  finite,  and  endowed  also  with  liberty  of  choice, 
must,  under  all  circumstances,  be  liable  to  sin.  It  is  argued  by  Arch- 
bishop King,  that  "  God,  though  he  be  omnipotent,  cannot  make  any 
created  being  absolutely  perfect ;  for  whatever  is  absolutely  perfect, 
must  necessarily  be  self-existent :  but  it  is  included  in  the  very  notion 
of  a  creature,  as  such,  not  to  exist  of  itself,  but  of  God.  An  absolutely 
perfect  creature,  therefore,  implies  a  contradiction ;  for  it  would  be  of 
itself,  and  not  of  itself,  at  the  same  time.  Absolute  perfection,  therefore, 
is  peculiar  to  God ;  and  should  he  communicate  his  own  peculiar  per- 
fection to  another,  that  other  would  be  God.  Imperfection  must  there- 
fore be  tolerated  in  creatures,  notwithstanding  the  Divine  omnipotence 
and  goodness  ; — for  contradictions  are  no  objects  of  power.  God  indeed 
might  have  refrained  from  acting,  and  continued  alone  self-sufficient, 
and  perfect  to  all  eternity ;  but  infinite  goodness  would  by  no  means 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES.  431 

allow  of  this ;  and  therefore  since  it  obliged  him  to  produce  external 
things,  which  things  could  not  possibly  be  perfect,  it  preferred  these 
imperfect  things  to  none  at  all ;  from  whence  it  follows,  that  imperfec- 
tion arose  from  the  infinity  of  Divine  goodness."  (Origin  of  Evil.) 

This  in  part  may  be  allowed.  Imperfection  must,  in  comparison  of 
God,  and  of  the  creature's  own  capacity  of  improvement,  remain  the 
character  of  a  finite  being ;  but  it  is  not  so  clear  that  this  imperfection 
must,  at  all  times,  and  throughout  the  whole  course  of  existence,  imply 
liability  to  sin.  God  is  free,  and  yet  cannot  "  be  tempted  of  evil."  "  It 
is  impossible  for  God  to  lie ;"  not  for  want  of  natural  freedom,  but  be- 
cause  of  an  absolute  moral  perfection.  Liberty,  and  impeccability  imply, 
therefore,  no  contradiction ;  and  it  cannot,  even  on  rational  grounds,  be 
concluded,  that  a  free  finite  moral  agent  may  not,  by  the  special  favour 
of  God,  be  placed  in  circumstances  in  which  sinning  is  morally  impos- 
sible. Revelation  undoubtedly  gives  this  promise  to  the  faithful,  in 
another  state ;  a  consummation  to  be  effected,  not  by  destroying  their 
natural  liberty,  but  by  improving  their  moral  condition.  This  was  not 
however  the  case  with  man  at  his  first  creation,  and  during  his  abode  in 
paradise.  His  state  was  not  that  of  the  glorified,  for  it  was  probationary, 
and  it  was  yet  inconceivably  advanced  above  the  present  state  of  man ; 
since,  with  a  nature  unstained  and  uncorrupted,  it  was  easy  for  him  to 
have  maintained  his  moral  rectitude,  and  to  have  improved  and  con- 
firmed it.  Obedience  with  him  had  not  those  clogs,  and  internal  oppo- 
sitions, and  outward  counteractions,  as  with  us.  It  was,  however,  a 
state  which  required  watchfulness,  and  effort,  and  prayer,  and  denial  of 
the  appetites  and  passions,  since  Eve  fell  by  her  appetite,  and  Adam  by 
his  passion :  and  slight  as,  in  theirs/  instance,  every  external  influence 
which  tend*»d  to  depress  the  energy  of  the  spiritual  life,  and  lead  man 
from  God,  might  be,  and  easy  to  be  resisted ;  it  might  become  a  step  to 
a  farther  defection,  and  the  nucleus  of  a  fatal  habit.  Thus  says  Bishop 
Butler,  with  his  accustomed  acuteness :  "  Mankind,  and  perhaps  all 
finite  creatures,  from  the  very  constitution  of  their  nature,  before  habits 
of  virtue,  are  deficient,  and  in  danger  of  deviating  from  what  is  right : 
and  therefore  stand  in  need  of  virtuous  habits,  for  a  security  against  this 
danger.  For,  together  with  the  general  principle  of  moral  understand- 
ing, we  have  in  our  inward  frame  various  affections  toward  particular 
external  objects.  These  affections  are  naturally,  and  of  right,  subject 
to  the  government  of  the  moral  principle,  as  to  the  occasions  upon  which 
they  may  be  gratified :  as  to  the  times,  degrees  and  manner,  in  which 
the  objects  of  them  may  be  pursued  :  but  then  the  principle  of  virtue  can 
neither  excite  them,  nor  prevent  their  being  excited.  On  the  contrary, 
they  are  naturally  felt,  when  the  objects  of  them  are  present  to  the 
mind,  not  only  before  all  consideration,  whether  they  can  be  obtained  by 
lawful  means,  but  after  it  is  found  they  cannot.    For  the  natural  objects 


432  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

of  affection  continue  so :  the  necessaries,  conveniences,  and  pleasures 
of  life,  remain  naturally  desirable  ;  though  they  cannot  be  obtained  inno- 
cently ;  nay,  thougli  they  cannot  possibly  be  obtained  at  all.  And  when 
the  objects  of  any  affection  whatever  cannot  be  obtained  without  unlaw, 
ful  means,  but  may  be  obtained  by  them ;  such  affection,  through  its 
being  excited,  and  its  continuance  some  time  in  the  mind,  be  it  as  inno- 
cent as  it  is  natural  and  necessary  ;  yet  cannot  but  be  conceived  to  have 
a  tendency  to  incline  persons  to  venture  upon  such  unlawful  means: 
and,  therefore,  must  be  conceived  as  putting  them  in  some  danger  of  it. 
Now,  what  is  the  general  security  against  this  danger,  against  their 
actually  deviating  from  right  ?  As  the  danger  is,  so  also  must  the  secu- 
rity be,  from  within ;  from  the  practical  principle  of  virtue.  And  the 
strengthening  or  improving  this  principle,  considered  as  practical,  or  as 
a  principle  of  action,  will  lessen  the  danger,  or  increase  the  security 
against  it.  And  this  moral  principle  is  capable  of  improvement,  by 
proper  discipline  and  exercise :  by  recollecting  the  practical  impres- 
sions which  example  and  experience  have  made  upon  us :  and,  instead 
of  following  humour  and  mere  inclination,  by  continually  attending  to 
the  equity  and  right  of  the  case,  in  whatever  we  are  engaged,  be  it  in 
greater  or  less  matters,  and  accustoming  ourselves  always  to  act  upon 
it ;  as  being  itself  the  just  and  natural  motive  of  action,  and  as  this  mo- 
ral course  of  behaviour  must  necessarily,  under  Divine  government,  be 
our  final  interest.  Thus  the  principle  of  virtue,  improved  into  habit,  of 
which  improvement  we  are  thus  capable,  will  plainly  he,  in  proportion  to 
the  strength  of  it,  a  security  against  the  danger  which  finite  creatures  are 
in,  from  the  very  nature  of  propension,  or  particular  affections. 

"  From  these  things  we  may  observe,  and  it  will  farther  show  this  our 
natural  and  original  need  of  being  improved  by  discipline,  how  it  comes 
to  pass,  that  creatures  made  upright  fall ;  and  that  those  who  preserve 
their  uprightness,  by  so  doing,  raise  themselves  to  a  more  secure  state 
of  virtue.  To  say  that  the  former  is  accounted  for  by  the  nature  of 
liberty,  is  to  say  no  more  than  that  an  event's  actually  happening  is 
accounted  for  by  a  mere  possibility  of  its  happening.  But  it  seems 
distinctly  conceivable  from  the  very  nature  of  particular  affections  or 
propensions.  For,  suppose  creatures  intended  for  such  a  particular  state 
of  life  for  which  such  propensions  were  necessary :  suppose  them  en. 
dued  with  such  propensions,  together  with  moral  understanding,  as  well 
including  a  practical  sense  of  virtue,  as  a  speculative  perception  of  it ; 
and  that  all  these  several  principles,  both  natural  and  moral,  forming  an 
inward  constitution  of  mind,  were  in  the  most  exact  proportion  possible  ; 
i.  e.  in  a  proportion  the  most  exactly  adapted  to  their  intended  state  of 
life ;  such  creatures  would  be  made  upright,  or  finitely  perfect.  Now, 
particular  propensions,  from  their  very  nature,  must  be  felt,  the  objects  of 
them  being  present ;  though  they  cannot  be  gratified  at  all,  or  not  with 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  433 

the  allowance  of  the  moral  principle.  But  if  they  can  be  gratified  with- 
out its  allowance,  or  by  contradicting  it ;  then  they  must  be  conceived  to 
have  some  tendency,  in  how  low  a  degree  soever,  yet  some  tendency, 
to  induce  persons  to  such  forbidden  gratification.  This  tendency,  in  some 
one  particular  propension,  may  be  increased,  by  the  greater  frequency 
of  occasions  naturally  exciting  it,  than  of  occasions  exciting  others. 
The  least  voluntary  indulgence  in  forbidden  circumstances,  though  but 
in  thought,  will  increase  this  wrong  tendency ;  and  may  increase  it 
farther,  till,  peculiar  conjunctures  perhaps  conspiring,  it  becomes  effect ; 
and  danger  of  deviating  from  right,  ends  in  actual  deviation  from  it :  a 
danger  necessarily  arising  from  the  very  nature  of  propension ;  and 
which,  therefore,  could  not  have  been  prevented,  though  it  might  have 
been  escaped,  or  got  innocently  through.  The  case  would  be,  as  if  we 
were  to  suppose  a  straight  path  marked  out  for  a  person,  in  which  such 
a  degree  of  attention  would  keep  him  steady  :  but  if  he  would  not  attend 
in  this  degree,  any  one  of  a  thousand  objects,  catching  his  eye,  might  lead 
him  out  of  it.  Now,  it  is  impossible  to  say,  how  much  even  the  first  full 
overt  act  of  irregularity  might  disorder  the  inward  constitution,  unsettle 
the  adjustments,  and  alter  the  proportions  which  formed  it,  and  in  which 
the  uprightness  of  its  make  consisted :  but  repetition  of  irregularities 
would  produce  habits.  And  thus  the  constitution  would  be  spoiled  ;  and 
creatures  made  upright  become  corrupt  and  depraved  in  their  settled 
character,  proportionably  to  their  repeated  irregularities  in  occasional 
acts.  But,  on  the  contrary,  these  creatures  might  have  improved  and 
raised  themselves  to  a  higher  and  more  secure  state  of  virtue  by  the 
contrary  behaviour :  by  steadily  following  the  moral  principle,  supposed 
to  be  one  part  of  their  nature :  and  thus  withstanding  that  unavoidable 
danger  of  defection,  which  necessarily  arose  from  propension,  ihe  other 
part  of  it.  For  by  thus  preserving  their  integrity  for  some  time,  their 
danger  would  lessen  ;  since  propensions,  by  being  inured  to  submit,  would 
do  it  more  easily  and  of  course  :  and  their  security  against  this  lessening 
danger  would  increase,  since  the  moral  principle  would  gain  additional 
strength  by  exercise ;  both  which  things  are  implied  in  the  notion  of 
virtuous  habits.  Thus,  then,  vicious  indulgence  is  not  only  criminal  in 
itself,  but  also  depraves  the  inward  constitution  and  character.  And 
virtuous  self  government  is  not  only  right  in  itself,  but  also  improves  the 
inward  constitution  or  character :  and  may  improve  it  to  such  a  degree, 
that  though  we  should  •  suppose  it  impossible  for  particular  affections  to 
be  absolutely  coincident  with  the  moral  principle ;  and  consequently 
should  allow,  that  such  creatures  as  have  been  above  supposed,  would 
for  ever  remain  defectible  :  yet  their  danger  of  actually  deviating  from 
right  may  be  almost  infinitely  lessened,  and  they  fully  fortified  against 
what  remains  of  it :  if  that  may  be  called  danger  against  which  there  is 
an  adequate  effectual  security.  But  still,  this  their  higher  perfection 
Vol.  I.  28 


/ 


434  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

may  continue  to  consist  in  habits  of  virtue  formed  in  a  state  of  discipline, 
and  this  their  more  complete  security  remain  to  proceed  from  them.  And 
thus  it  is  plainly  conceivable,  that  creatures  without  blemish,  as  they 
came  out  of  the  hands  of  God,  may  be  in  danger  of  going  wrong ;  and 
so  may  stand  in  need  of  the  security  of  virtuous  habits,  additional  to  the 
moral  principle  wrought  into  their  natures  by  him.  That  which  is  the 
ground  of  their  danger,  or  their  want  of  security,  may  be  considered  as 
a  deficiency  in  them,  to  which  virtuous  habits  are  the  natural  supply. 
And  as  they  are  naturally  capable  of  being  raised  and  improved  by 
discipline,  it  may  be  a  thing  fit  and  requisite,  that  they  should  be  placed 
in  circumstances  with  an  eye  to  it :  in  circumstances  peculiarly  fitted 
to  be,  to  them,  a  state  of  discipline  for  their  improvement  in  virtue." 
(Analogy.) 

It  is  easy  therefore  to  conceive,  without  supposing  that  moral  liberty 
in  all  cases  necessarily  supposes  liability  to  commit  sin,  how  a  perfectly 
pure  and  upright  being  might  be  capable  of  disobedience,  though  con. 
tinued  submission  to  God  and  to  his  law  was  not  only  possible,  but 
practicable  without  painful  and  difficult  effort.  To  be  in  a  state  of  trial, 
the  moral,  as  well  as  the  natural  freedom  to  choose  evil  was  essential , 
and  as  far  as  this  fact  bears  upon  the  question  of  the  Divine  goodness,  it 
resolves  itself  into  this,  "  whether  it  was  inconsistent  with  that  attribute 
of  the  Divine  nature,  to  endow  man  with  this  liberty,  or  in  other  words 
to  place  him  in  a  state  of  trial  on  earth,  before  his  admission  into  that 
state  from  which  the  possibility  of  evil  is  for  ever  excluded."  To  this, 
unassisted  reason  could  frame  no  answer.  fpy  the  aid  of  revelation 
we  are  assured,  that  benevolence  is  so  absolutely  the  motive  and  the  end 
of  the  Divine  providence,  that  thus  to  dispose  of„man,  and  consequently 
to  permit  his  voluntary  fall,  is  consistent  with  it jflbut  in  what  manner  it 
is  so,  is  involved  in  obscurity  :  and  the  fact  berng  established,  we  may 
well  be  content  to  wait  for  the  developement  of  that  great  process  which 
shall  "justify  the  ways  of  God  to  man,"  without  indulging  in  speculations 
which,  for  want  of  all  the  facts  of  the  case  before  us,  must  always  be  to 
a  great  extent  without  foundation,  and  may  even  seriously  mislead. 
This  we  know,  that  the  entrance  of  sin  into  the  world  has  given  occa- 
sion for  the  tenderest  displays  of  the  Divine  goodness  in  the  gift  of  the 
great  Restorer ;  and  opened,  to  all  who  will  avail  themselves  of  the 
blessing,  the  gate  to  "  glory,  honour,  immortality,  and  eternal  life."  The 
observations  of  Doddridge  on  this  subject,  have  a  commendable  modesty. 

"  It  will  still  be  demanded,  why  was  moral  evil  permitted  ?  To  this  it 
is  generally  answered,  that  it  was  the  result  of  natural  liberty  ;  and  it 
was  fit  that  among  all  the  other  classes  and  orders  of  beings,  some 
should  be  formed  possessed  of  this,  as  it  conduces  to  the  harmony  of 
the  universe,  and  to  the  beautiful  variety  of  beings  in  it.  Yet  still  it  ia 
replied,  Why  did  not  God  prevent  this  abuse  of  liberty  ?    One  would 


SECOND.  I  THEOLOGICAL   INSTITUTES.  435 

not  willingly  say,  that  he  is  not  able  to  do  it,  without  violating  the  nature 
of  his  creatures  ;  nor  is  it  possible  that  any  should  prove  this.  It  is  com- 
monly  said,  that  he  permitted  it,  in  order  to  extract  from  thence  greater 
good.  But  it  may  be  farther  queried,  Could  he  not  have  produced 
that  greater  good  without  such  a  means?  Could  he  not  have  secured 
among  all  his  creatures  universal  good,  and  universal  happiness,  in  full 
consistency  with  the  liberty  he  had  given  them  ?  I  acknowledge  I  see 
no  way  of  answering  this  question  but  by  saying,  he  had  indeed  a 
natural  power  of  doing  it,  but  that  he  saw  it  better  not  to  do  it,  though 
the  reasons  upon  which  it  appeared  preferable  to  him  are  entirely  un- 
known to  us."  (Doddridge's  Lectures.) 

The  mercy  of  God  is  not  a  distinct  attribute  of  his  nature,  but  a 
mode  of  his  goodness.  It  is  the  disposition  whereby  he  is  inclined  to 
succour  those  who  are  in  misery,  and  to  pardon  those  who  have  offended. 
41  In  Scripture  language,"  says  Archbishop  Tillotson,  "  it  is  usually  set 
forth  to  us  by  the  expressions  of  pity  and  compassion ;  which  is  an 
affection  that  causes  a  sensible  commotion  and  disturbance  in  us,  upon 
the  apprehension  of  some  great  evil,  either  threatening  or  oppressing 
another  ;  pursuant  to  which,  God  is  said  to  be  grieved  and  afflicted  for  the 
miseries  of  men.  But  though  God  be  pleased  in  this  manner  to  convey 
an  idea  of  his  mercy  and  tenderness  to  us,  yet  we  must  take  heed  how 
we  clothe  the  Divine  nature  with  the  infirmities  of  human  passions  :  we 
must  not  measure  the  perfections  of  God  by  the  expressions  of  his 
condescension  ;  and  because  he  stoops  to  our  weakness,  level  him  to  our 
infirmities.  When  therefore  God  is  said  to  pity  us,  or  to  be  grieved  at 
our  afflictions,  we  must  be  careful  to  remove  the  imperfection  of  the 
passion,  the  commotion  and  disturbance  that  it  occasions,  and  then  we 
may  conceive  as  strongly  of  the  Divine  mercy  and  compassion  as  we 
please ;  and  that  it  exerts  itself  in  a  very  tender  and  affectionate 
manner. 

"  And  therefore  the  Holy  Scriptures  qot  only  tell  us,  that '  the  Lord 
our  God  is  a  merciful  God,'  but  that  <  he  is  the  Father  of  mercies,  and 
the  God  of  all  comfort ;'  that  he  •  delights  in  mercy, — waits  to  be 
gracious, — rejoices  over  us  to  do  good, — and  crowneth  us  with  his 
loving  kindness  :'  to  denote  the  greatness  and  continuance  of  this  affec- 
tion, they  not  only  tell  us  that  '  his  mercy  is  above  the  heavens  ;'  that  it 
extends  itself  '  over  all  his  works, — is  laid  up  in  store  for  a  thousand 
generations,  and  is  to  endure  for  ever  and  ever :'  to  express  the  intense- 
ness  of  it,  they  not  only  tell  us  of  the  *  multitude  of  his  tender  mercies, 
— the  sounding  of  his  bowels,'  the  relentings  of  his  heart,  and  '  the 
kindlings  of  his  repentance ;'  but  to  give  us  as  sensible  an  idea  as 
possible  of  the  compassions  of  God,  they  compare  them  to  the  tenderest 
affections  among  men  ;  to  that  of  a  father  toward  his  children  :  '  As  a 
father  pitieth  his  children,  so  the  Lord  pitieth  them  that  fear  him ;'  nay, 


436  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [pA.RT 

to  the  compassion  of  a  mother  toward  her  infant :  '  can  a  woman  forget 
her  sucking  child,  that  she  should  not  have  compassion  on  the  son  of 
her  womb  ?  yea,  she  may  forget,'  it  is  possible,  though  very  unlikely ; 
but  though  a  mother  may  become  unnatural,  yet  God  cannot  prove  un- 
merciful. 

"  In  short,  the  Scriptures  every  where  magnify  the  mercy  of  God,  and 
speak  of  it  with  all  possible  advantage,  as  if  the  Divine  nature,  which 
does  in  all  perfections  excel  every  other  thing,  did  in  this  perfection 
excel  itself:  and  of  this  we  have  a  farther  conviction,  if  we  lift  but  up 
our  eyes  to  God,  and  then  turning  them  upon  ourselves,  begin  to  con- 
sider how  many  evils  and  miseries,  that  every  day  we  are  exposed  to, 
by  his  preventing  mercy  are  hindered,  or,  when  they  were  coming  upon 
us,  stopped  or  turned  another  way :  how  oft  our  punishment  has  he 
deferred  by  his  forbearing  mercy,  or,  when  it  was  necessary  for  our 
chastisement,  mitigated  and  made  light :  how  oft  we  have  been  sup- 
ported in  our  afflictions  by  his  comforting  mercy,  and  visited  with  the 
light  of  his  countenance,  in  the  exigencies  of  our  soul,  and  the  gloomi- 
ness of  despair :  how  oft  we  have  been  supplied  by  his  relieving  mercy 
in  our  wants,  and,  when  there  was  no  hand  to  succour,  and  no  soul  to 
pity  us,  his  arm  has  been  stretched  out  to  lift  us  from  the  mire  and  clay, 
and  by  a  providential  train  of  events,  brought  about  our  sustenance  and 
support :  and  above  all,  how  daily,  how  hourly,  how  minutely  we  offend 
against  him,  and  yet,  by  the  power  of  his  pardoning  mercy,  we  are  still 
alive :  for,  considering  the  multitude  and  heinousness  of  our  provoca. 
tion-s,  '  it  is  of  his  mercy  alone  that  we  are  not  consumed,  and  because 
his  compassions  fail  not.  Whoso  is  wise  will  ponder  these  things,  and 
he  will  understand  the  loving  kindness  of  the  Lord.'  "  (Sermons.) 


CHAPTER  VII. 

Attributes  of  God. — Holiness. 

In  creatures,  holiness  is  conformity  to  the  will  of  God,  as  expressed 
in  his  laws,  and  consists  in  abstinence  from  every  thing  which  has 
been  comprehended  under  the  general  term  of  sin,  and  in  the  habit  and 
practice  of  righteousness.  Both  these  terms  are  properly  understood 
to  include  various  principles,  affections,  and  acts,  which,  considered 
separately,  are  regarded  as  vices  or  virtues ;  and,  collectively,  as  consti- 
tuting a  holy  or  a  polluted  character.  Our  conception  of  holiness  in 
creatures,  both  in  its  negative  and  its  positive  import,  is  therefore  expli- 
cit ;  it  is  determined  by  the  will  of  God.  But  when  we  speak  of  God, 
we  speak  of  a  Being  who  is  a  law  to  himself,  and  whose  conduct  cannot 
be  referred  to  a  higher  authority  than  his  own.     This  circumstance  has 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  437 

given  rise  to  various  opinions  on  the  subject  of  the  holiness  of  the 
Divine  Being,  and  to  different  modes  of  stating  this  glorious  attribute  ot 
his  moral  nature.  But  without  conducting  the  reader  into  the  profitless 
question,  whether  there  is  a  fixed  and  unalterable  nature  and  fitness  of 
things,  independent  of  the  Divine  will  on  the  one  hand  ;  or  on  the  other, 
whether  good  and  evil  have  their  foundation,  not  in  the  nature  of 
things,  but  only  in  the  Divine  will,  which  makes  them  such,  there  is  a 
method,  less  direct  it  may  be,  but  more  satisfactory,  of  assisting  our 
thoughts  on  this  subject. 

It  is  certain  that  various  affections  and  actions  have  been  enjoined 
upon  all  rational  creatures  under  the  general  name  of  righteousness, 
and  that  their  contraries  have  been  prohibited.  It  is  a  matter  also  of 
constant  experience  and  observation,  that  the  good  of  society  is  pro- 
moted only  by  the  one,  and  injured  by  the  other  ;  and  also  that  every 
individual  derives,  by  the  very  constitution  of  his  nature,  benefit  and 
happiness  from  rectitude  ;  injury  and  misery  from  vice.  This  consti- 
tution of  human  nature  is  therefore  an  indication,  that  the  Maker  and 
Ruler  of  men  formed  them  with  the  intent  that  they  should  avoid  vice, 
and  practise  virtue  ;  and  that  the  former  is  the  object  of  his  aversion, 
the  latter  of  his  regard.  On  this  principle  all  the  laws,  which  in  his 
legislative  character  almighty  God  has  enacted  for  the  government  of 
mankind,  have  been  constructed.  "  The  law  is  holy,  and  the  command- 
ment holy,  just,  and  good."  In  the  administration  of  the  world,  where 
God  is  so  often  seen  in  his  judicial  capacity,  the  punishments  which  are 
inflicted,  indirectly  or  immediately  upon  men,  clearly  tend  to  discourage 
and  prevent  the  practice  of  evil.  "  Above  all,  the  Gospel,  that  last  and 
most  perfect  revelation  of  the  Divine  will,  instead  of  giving  the  profes- 
sors of  it  any  allowance  to  sin,  because  grace  has  abounded,  (which  is 
an  injurious  imputation  cast  upon  it  by  ignorant  and  impious  minds,)  its 
chief  design  is  to  establish  that  great  principle,  God's  moral  purity,  and 
to  manifest  his  abhorrence  of  sin,  and  inviolable  regard  to  purity  and 
virtue  in  his  reasonable  creatures.  It  was  for  this  he  sent  his  Son  kito 
the  world  to  turn  men  from  their  iniquities,  and  bring  them  back  to  ihe 
paths  of  righteousness.  For  this,  the  blessed  Jesus  submitted  to  the 
deepest  humiliations  and  most  grievous  sufferings.  He  gave  himself, 
(as  St.  Paul  speaks)  for  his  Church,  that  he  might  sanctify  and  cleanse 
it,  that  he  might  present  it  to  himself  a  glorious  Church,  not  having 
spot  or  wrinkle,  but  that  it  should  be  holy  and  without  blemish  :  or,  as  it 
is  elsewhere  expressed,  he  gave  himself  for  us,  to  redeem  us  from  our 
iniquities,  and  to  purify  unto  himself  a  peculiar  people,  zealous  of  good 
works.  In  all  this  he  is  said  to  have  done  the  will  of  his  Father,  and 
glorified  him,  that  is,  restored  and  prom-ted  in  the  world,  the  cause  of 
virtue  and  righteousness,  which  is  the  glory  of  God.  And  his  life  was 
the  visible  image  of  the  Divine  sanctity,  proposed  as  a  familiar  example 


438  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [FART 

to  mankind,  for  he  was  holy,  harmless,  undefiled,  and  separate  from 
sinners.  He  did  no  sin,  neither  was  guile  found  in  his  mouth.  And  as 
Christianity  appears,  by  the  character  of  its  author,  and  by  his  actions 
and  sufferings,  to  be  a  designed  evidence  of  the  holiness  of  God,  or  of 
his  aversion  to  sin,  and  his  gracious  desire  to  turn  men  from  it,  so  the 
institution  itself  is  perfectly  pure,  it  contains  the  clearest  and  most  lively 
descriptions  of  moral  virtue,  and  the  strongest  motives  to  the  practice 
of  it.  It  promises,  as  from  God,  the  kindest  assistance  to  men,  for 
making  the  Gospel  effectual  to  renew  them  in  the  spirit  of  their  minds, 
and  to  reform  their  lives,  by  his  Spirit  sent  down  from  heaven,  on 
purpose  to  convince  the  world  of  sin,  and  righteousness,  and  judgment. 
To  enlighten  them  who  were  in  darkness,  and  turn  the  disobedient  to 
the  wisdom  of  the  just,  to  strengthen  its  converts  to  true  religion,  unto 
all  obedience  and  long  suffering,  and  patience,  to  enable  them  to  resist 
temptation,  to  abound  in  the  fruits  of  righteousness,  and  perfect  holiness 
in  the  fear  of  God."  (Abernethy's  Sermons.) 

Since,  then,  it  is  so  manifest,  that  "  the  Lord  loveth  righteousness, 
and  hateth  iniquity,"  it  must  be  necessarily  concluded,  that  this  prefer- 
ence of  the  one,  and  hatred  of  the  other,  flow  from  some  principle  in 
his  very  nature.  "  That  he  is  the  righteous  Lord.  Of  purer  eyes  than 
to  behold  evil, — one  who  cannot  look  upon  iniquity."  This  principle 
is  holiness,  an  attribute,  which,  in  the  most  emphatic  manner,  is 
assumed  by  himself,  and  attributed  to  him,  both  by  adoring  angels  in 
their  choirs,  and  by  inspired  saints  in  their  worship.  He  is,  by  his  own 
designation,  "  the  Holy  One  of  Israel ;"  the  seraphs  in  the  vision  of 
the  prophet,  cry  continually,  "  Holy,  holy,  holy,  is  the  Lord  God  of 
hosts,  the  whole  earth  is  full  of  his  glory,"  thus  summing  up  all  his  glo 
ries  in  this  sole  moral  perfection.  The  language  of  the  sanctuary  on 
earth  is  borrowed  from  that  of  heaven.  "  Who  shall  not  fear  thee,  O 
Lord,  and  glorify  thy  name,  for  thou  only  art  holy." 

If  then  there  is  this  principle  in  the  Divine  mind,  which  leads  him  to 
prescribe,  love,  and  reward  truth,  justice,  benevolence,  and  every  other 
virtuous  affection  and  habit  in  his  creatures  which  we  sum  up  in  the 
term  holiness ;  and  to  forbid,  restrain,  and  punish  their  opposites ;  that 
principle  being  essential  in  him,  a  part  of  his  very  nature  and  Godhead, 
must  be  the  spring  and  guide  of  his  own  conduct ;  and  thus  we  conceive 
without  difficulty  of  the  essential  rectitude  or  holiness  of  the  Divine  nature, 
and  the  absolutely  pure,  and  righteous  character  of  his  administration : 
"In  him  there  can  be  no  malice,  or  envy,  or  hatred,  or  revenge,  or 
pride,  or  cruelty,  or  tyranny,  or  injustice,  or  falsehood,  or  unfaithfulness ; 
and  if  there  be  any  thing  beside  which  implies  sin,  and  vice,  and  moral 
imperfection,  holiness  signifies  that  the  Divine  nature  is  at  an  infinite 
distance  from  it."  (Tillotson.)  Nor  are  we  only  to  conceive  of  this 
quality  negatively,  but  positively  also,  as  "  the  actual,  perpetual  recti- 


SECOND]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  439 

tude  of  all  his  volitiohs,  and  all  the  works  and  actions  which  are  conse- 
quent thereupon  ;  and  an  eternal  propension  thereto,  and  love  thereof, 
by  which  it  is  altogether  impossible  to  that  will  that  it  should  ever  vary." 
(Howe.) 

This  attribute  of  holiness,  exhibits  itself  in  two  great  branches, 
justice  and  truth,  which  are  sometimes  also  treated  of  as  separate 
attributes. 

Justice,  in  its  principle,  is  holiness,  and  is  often  expressed  by  the 
term  righteousness ;  but  when  it  relates  to  matters  of  government,  the 
universal  rectitude  of  the  Divine  nature  shows  itself  in  inflexible  regard 
to  what  is  right,  and  in  an  opposition  to  wrong,  which  cannot  be  warped 
or  altered  in  any  degree  whatever.  "  Just  and  right  is  he."  Justice 
in  God,  when  it  is  not  regarded  as  universal,  but  particular,  is  either 
legislative  or  judicial. 

Legislative  justice  determines  man's  duty,  and  binds  him  to  the  per- 
formance of  it,  and  also  defines  the  rewards  and  punishments,  which 
shall  be  due  upon  the  creature's  obedience,  or  disobedience.  This 
branch  of  Divine  justice  has  many  illustrations  in  Scripture.  The  prin- 
ciple of  it  is,  that  absolute  right  which  God  has  to  the  entire  and 
perpetual  obedience  of  the  creatures  which  he  has  made.  This  right 
is  unquestionable,  and  in  pursuance  of  it,  all  moral  agents  are  placed 
under  law,  and  are  subject  to  rewards  or  punishments.  None  are 
excepted.  Those  who  have  not  God's  revealed  law,  have  a  law 
"  written  on  their  hearts,"  and  are  "  a  law  unto  themselves."  The  ori- 
ginal law  of  obedience,  given  to  man,  was  a  law  not  to  the  first  man, 
but  to  the  whole  human  race ;  for  if,  as  the  apostle  has  laid  it  down, 
"the  wliole  world,"  comprising  both  Jews  and  Gentiles,  is  "guilty  before 
God,"  then  the  whole  world  is  under  a  law  of  obedience.  In  this 
respect  God  is  just  in  asserting  his  own  right  to  be  obeyed,  and  in 
claiming,  from  the  creature  he  has  made  and  preserved,  the  obedience, 
which  in  strict  righteousness  he  owes ;  but  this  claim  is  strictly  limited, 
and  never  goes  beyond  justice  into  rigour.  "  He  is  not  a  hard  master, 
reaping  where  he  has  not  sown,  and  gathering  where  he  has  not 
strewed."  His  law  is  however  unchangeable  in  its  demand  upon  man 
for  universal  obedience,  because  man  is  considered  in  it  as  a  creature 
capable  of  yielding  that  obedience  ;  but  when  the  human  race  became 
corrupt,  means  of  pardon,  consistent  with  righteous  government,  were 
introduced,  by  the  atonement  for  sin  made  by  the  death  of  Jesus  Christ, 
received  by  faith :  and  supernatural  aid  was  put  within  their  reach,  by 
which  the  evil  of  their  nature  might  be  removed,  and  the  disposition  / 
and  the  power  to  obey  the  law  of  God  imparted.  ^The  case  of  hea-  4 
tnen  nations  to  whom  the  Gospel  is  not  yet  preached,  may  hereafter 
be  considered.  It  involves  some  difficulties,  but  it  is  enough  for 
us  to  know,  that  "  the  Judge  of  the  whole  earth  will  do  right ;"  and  that 


440  THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES.  [PART 

this  shall  be  made  apparent  to  all  creatures,  when  the  facts  of  the 
whole  case  shall  be  disclosed,  "  in  the  day  of  the  revelation  of  Jesus 
Christ.") 

Judicial  justice,  more  generally  termed  distributive  justice,  is  that 
which  respects  rewards  and  punishments.  God  renders  to  men  accord- 
ing to  their  works.  This  branch  of  justice  is  said  to  be  remunerative, 
or  pra.mia.tive,  when  he  rewards  the  obedient ;  and  vindictive,  when  he 
punishes  the  guilty.  With  respect  to  the  first,  it  is  indeed  reward, 
properly  speaking,  not  of  debt,  but  of  grace ;  for,  antecedently,  God 
cannot  be  a  debtor  to  his  creatures ;  but  since  he  binds  himself  by 
engagements  in  his  law,  "  this  do  and  thou  shalt  live,"  express  or  tacit, 
or  attaches  a  particular  promise  of  reward  to  some  particular  duty,  it 
becomes  a  part  of  justice  to  perform  the  engagement.  On  this  principle 
also,  St.  Paul  says,  Heb.  vi,  10,  "  God  is  not  unrighteous  to  forget  your 
work,  and  labour  of  love.  And  if  we  confess  our  sins,  he  is  faithful 
and  just  to  forgive  us  our  sins."  "  Even  this  has  justice  in  it.  It  is 
upon  one  account,  the  highest  act  of  mercy  imaginable,  considering 
with  what  liberty  and  freedom  the  course  and  method  were  settled, 
wherein  sins  come  to  be  pardoned  :  but  it  is  an  act  of  justice  also,  inas- 
much as  it  is  the  observation  of  a  method  to  which  he  had  bound  himself, 
and  from  which  afterward,  therefore,  he  cannot  depart,  cannot  vary." 
(Howe's  Post.  Works.) 

Vindictive  or  punitive  justice,  consists  in  the  infliction  of  punishment. 
It  renders  the  punishment  of  unpardoned  sin  certain,  so  that  no  criminal 
shall  escape  ;  and  it  guarantees  the  exact  proportion  of  punishment  to 
the  nature  and  circumstances  of  the  offence.  Both  these  circumstances 
are  marked  in  numerous  passages  of  Scripture,  the  testimony  of  which 
on  this  subject  may  be  summed  up  in  the  words  of  Elihu :  "  for  the  work 
of  a  man  shall  he  render  unto  him,  and  cause  every  man  to  find  accord- 
ing to  his  ways,  yea,  surely  God  will  not  do  wickedly,  neither  will  the 
Almighty  pervert  judgment." 

What  is  called  commutative  justice,  relates  to  the  exchange  of  one 
thing  for  another  of  equal  value,  and  is  called  forth  by  contracts,  bar- 
gains, and  similar  transactions  among  men ;  but  this  branch  of  justice 
belongs  not  to  God  because  of  his  dignity.  "  He  hath  no  equal,  there 
are  none  of  the  same  order  with  him  to  make  exchanges  with  him,  or 
to  transfer  rights  to  him  for  any  rights  transferred  from  him."  "  Our 
righteousness  extendeth  not  to  him,  nor  can  man  be  profitable  to  his 
Maker."  The  whole  world  of  creatures  is  challenged  and  humbled  by 
the  question,  "  Who  hath  given  him  any  thing,  and  it  shall  be  recom- 
pensed to  him  again  ?" 

Strict  impartiality  is,  however,  a  prominent  character  in  the  justice 
of  God.  "  There  is  no  respect  of  persons  with  God."  As  on  the  one 
hand  he  hateth  nothing  which  he  has  made,  and  cannot  be  influenced 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL   INSTITUTES.  441 

by  prejudices  and  prepossessions ;  so  on  the  other,  he  can  fear  no  one. 
however  powerful.  No  being  is  necessary  to  him,  even  as  an  agent  to 
fulfil  his  plans,  that  he  should  overlook  his  offences ;  no  combination  of 
beings  can  resist  the  steady  and  equal  march  of  his  administration.  The 
majesty  of  his  Godhead  sets  him  infinitely  above  all  such  considerations. 
"  The  Lord  our  God  is  the  God  of  gods,  and  Lord  of  lords,  a  great  God, 
a  mighty  and  terrible,  which  regardeth  not  persons,  neither  taketh  re- 
wards.— He  accepteth  not  the  person  of  princes,  nor  regardeth  the  rich 
more  than  the  poor,  for  they  are  all  the  work  of  his  hands." 

There  are  however  many  circumstances  in  the  administration  of  the 
affairs  of  the  world,  which  appear  irreconcilable  to  that  strict  and  exact 
exercise  of  justice  we  have  ascribed  to  God  as  the  supreme  Ruler. 
These  have  sometimes  been  urged  as  objections,  and  the  writers  of 
systems  of  "  natural  religion"  have  often  found  it  difficult  to  answer 
them.  That  has  arisen  from  their  excluding  from  such  systems,  as 
much  as  possible,  the  light  of  revelation ;  and  on  that  account,  much 
more  than  from  the  real  difficulties  of  the  cases  adduced,  it  is,  that  their 
reasonings  are  often  unsatisfactory.  Yet  if  man  is,  in  point  of  fact, 
under  a  dispensation  of  grace  and  mercy,  and  that  is  now  in  perfect 
accordance  with  the  strictest  justice  of  God's  moral  government,  nei- 
ther his  circumstances,  nor  the  conduct  of  God  toward  him,  can  ever 
be  judged  of  by  systems  which  are  constructed  expressly  on  the  prin- 
ciple of  excluding  all  such  views  as  are  peculiar  to  the  Scriptures.  In 
attempting  it  the  cause  of  truth  has  been  injured  rather  than  served ; 
because  a  feeble  argument  has  been  often  wielded  when  a  powerful 
one  was  at  hand ;  and  the  answer  to  infidel  objectors  has  been  partial, 
lest  it  should  be  said  that  the  full  and  sufficient  reply  was  furnished, 
not  by  human  reason,  but  by  the  reason,  the  wisdom  of  God  himself  as 
embodied  in  his  word.  This  is  however  little  better  than  a  solemn 
manner  of  trifling  with  truths  which  so  deeply  concern  men. 

But  let  the  two  facts  which  respect  the  relations  of  man  to  God  as 
the  Governor  of  the  world,  and  which  stamp  their  character  upon  his 
administration,  be  both  taken  into  account ; — that  God  is  a  just  Ruler, — 
and  yet,  that  offending  man  is  under  a  dispensation  of  mercy,  which 
provides,  through  the  sacrifice  of  Christ  meritoriously,  and  his  own 
repentance  and  faith  instrumentally,  for  his  forgiveness,  and  for  the 
healing  of  his  corrupted  nature ;  and  a  strong,  and  generally  a  most 
satisfactory  light  is  thrown  upon  those  cases  which  have  been  sup- 
posed most  irreconcilable  to  an  exact  and  righteous  government. 

The  doctrine  of  a.  future  and  general  judgment,  which  alone  explains 
so  many  difficulties  in  the  Divine  administration,  is  grounded  solely  on 
the  doctrine  of  redemption.  Under  an  administration  of  strict  justice, 
punishment  must  have  followed  offence  without  delay.  This  is  indicated 
in  the  sanction  of  the  first  law,  "  in  the  day  thou  eatest  thereof,  thou 


442  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

shalt  surely  die,"  a  threat  which,  we  may  learn  from  Scripture,  would 
have  been  executed  fully,  but  for  the  immediate  introduction  of  the 
redeeming  scheme.  If  we  suppose  the  first  pair  to  have  preserved  their 
innocence,  and  any  of  their  descendants  at  any  period  to  have  become 
disobedient,  they  must  have  borne  their  own  iniquity ;  and  punishment, 
to  death  and  excision,  must  instantly  have  followed ;  for,  in  the  case  of 
a  Divine  government,  where  the  parties  are  God  and  a  creature,  every 
sin  must  be  considered  capital,  since  the  penalty  of  death  is,  in  every 
case,  the  sentence  of  the  Divine  law  against  transgression.  Under  such 
an  administration,  no  reason  would  seem  to  exist  for  a  general  judgment 
at  the  close  of  the  world's  duration.  That  has  its  reason  in  the  circum- 
stances of  trial  in  which  men  are  placed  by  the  introduction  of  a  method 
of  recovery.  Justice,  in  connection  with  a  sufficient  atonement,  admits 
of  the  suspension  of  punishment  for  offence,  of  long  suffering,  of  the 
application  of  means  of  repentance  and  conversion  ;  and  that  throughout 
the  whole  term  of  natural  life.  The  judgment,  the  examination,  and 
public  exhibition  of  the  use  or  abuse  of  this  patience,  and  of  those  means, 
is  deferred  to  one  particular  day,  in  which  he  who  now  offers  grace 
shall  administer  justice,  strict  and  unsparing.  This  world  is  not  the 
appointed  place  of  final  judgment,  under  the  new  dispensation ;  the  space 
of  human  life  on  earth  is  not  the  time  appointed  for  it ;  and  however 
difficult  it  may  be,  without  taking  these  things  into  consideration,  to  trace 
the  manifestations  of  justice  in  God's  moral  government,  or  to  reconcile 
certain  circumstances  to  the  character  of  a  righteous  governor,  by  their 
aid  the  difficulty  is  removed.  Justice,  as  the  principle  of  his  adminis- 
tration, has  a  sufficiently  awful  manifestation  in  the  miseries  which,  in 
this  life,  are  attached  to  vice  ;  in  the  sorrows  and  sufferings  to  which  a 
corrupted  race  is  subjected  ;  and,  above  all,  in  the  satisfaction  exacted 
from  the  Son  of  God  himself,  as  the  price  of  human  pardon:  but  since 
the  final  punishment  of  persevering  and  obstinate  offenders  is,  by  God's 
own  proclamation,  postponed  to  "  a  day  appointed,  in  which  he  will  judge 
the  world  in  righteousness,  by  that  man  whom  he  hath  ordained,"  and 
since  also  the  final  rewards  of  the  reconciled  and  recovered  part  of 
mankind  are  equally  delayed,  it  is  folly  to  look  for  a  perfect  exercise  of 
justice  in  the  present  state. 

We  may  learn  therefore  from  this, — 

1.  That  it  is  no  impeachment  of  a  righteous  government,  that  external 
prosperity  should  be  the  lot  of  great  offenders.  It  may  be  part  of  a 
gracious  administration  to  bring  them  to  repentance  by  favour,  or  it  may 
be  designed  to  make  their  fall  and  final  punishment  more  marked ;  or  it 
may  be  intended  to  teach  the  important  lesson  of  the  slight  value  of  out- 
ward  advantages,  separate  from  holy  habits  and  a  thankful  mind. 

2.  That  it  is  not  inconsistent  with  rectitude,  that  even  those  who  are 
forgiven  and  reconciled,  those  who  are  become  dear  to  God,  should  be 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  443 

afflicted  and  oppressed,  since  their  defects  and  omissions  may  require 
chastisement,  and  since  also  these  are  made  the  means  of  their  excelling 
in  virtue,  of  aiding  their  heavenly  mindedness,  and  of  qualifying  them 
for  a  better  state. 

3.  That  as  the  administration  under  which  man  is  placed  is  one  of 
grace  in  harmony  with  justice,  the  dispensation  of  what  is  matter  of  pure 
favour,  may  have  great  variety  and  be  even  very  unequal  without  any 
impeachment  of  justice.  The  parable  of  the  labourers  in  the  vineyard 
seems  designed  to  illustrate  this.  To  all  God  will  be  able,  at  the  reckon- 
ing at  the  close  of  the  day,  to  say,  "  I  do  thee  no  wrong ;"  no  principle 
of  justice  will  be  violated  ;  it  will  then  appear  that  "  he  reaps  not 
where  he  has  not  sown."  But  the  other  principle  will  have  been  as 
strikingly  made  manifest,  "  Is  it  not  lawful  for  me  to  do  what  I  will 
with  my  own  ?" 

With  nations  the  case  is  otherwise.  Their  rewards  and  punishments 
being  of  a  civil  nature,  may  be  fully  administered  in  this  life,  and,  as 
bodies  politic,  they  have  no  posthumous  existence.  Reward  and  retri- 
bution, in  their  case,  have  been  therefore  in  all  ages  visible  and  striking ; 
and,  in  the  conduct  of  the  great  Ruler  to  them,  "  his  judgments"  are  said 
to  be  "abroad  in  the  earth."  In  succession,  every  vicious  nation  has 
perished ;  and  always  by  means  so  marked,  and  often  so  singular,  as  to 
bear  upon  them  a  broad  and  legible  punitive  character.  With  collective 
bodies  of  men,  indeed,  the  government  of  God  in  this  world  is  greatly 
concerned ;  and  that  both  in  their  civil  and  religious  character ;  with 
Churches,  so  to  speak,  as  well  as  with  states ;  and,  in  consequence,  the 
cases  of  individuals,  as  all  cannot  be  of  equal  guilt  or  innocence,  must 
often  be  mixed  and  confounded.  These  apparent,  and  sometimes,  per- 
haps, from  the  operation  of  a  general  system,  real  irregularities,  can  be 
compensated  to  the  good,  or  overtaken  as  to  the  wicked,  in  their  per- 
sonal character  in  another  state,  to  which  we  are  constantly  directed 
to  look  forward,  as  to  the  great  and  ample  comment  upon  all  that  is 
obscure  in  this. 

For  the  discoveries  of  the  word  of  God  as  to  this  attribute  of  the 
Divine  nature,  we  owe  the  most  grateful  acknowledgments  to  its  Author. 
Without  this  revelation,  indeed,  the  conceptions  which  heathens  form  of 
the  justice  with  which  the  world  is  administered,  are  exceedingly  imper- 
fect and  unsettled.  The  course  of  the  world  is  to  them  a  flow  without 
a  direction,  movement  without  control ;  and  gloom  and  impatience  must 
often  be  the  result :  (5)  taught  as  we  are,  we  see  nothing  loose  or  dis- 

(5)  The  accomplished  Quinctilian  may  be  given  as  an  instance  of  this,  and 
also  of  what  the  apostle  calls  their  sorrowing  "  without  hope."  In  pathetically 
lamenting  the  death  of  his  wife  and  sons,  he  tells  us,  that  he  had  lost  all  taste 
for  study,  and  that  every  good  parent  would  condemn  him,  if  he  employed  his 
tongue  for  any  other  purpose  than  to  accuse  the  gods,   and  testify  against  a 


444  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

jointed  in  the  system.  A  firm  hand  grasps  and  controls  and  directs  the 
whole.  This  governing  power  is  also  manifested  to  us  as  our  friend, 
our  father,  and  our  God,  delighting  in  mercy,  and  resorting  only  to 
severity  when  we  ourselves  oblige  the  reluctant  measure.  On  these 
firm  principles  of  justice  and  mercy,  truth  and  goodness,  every  thing  in 
private  as  well  as  public  is  conducted ;  and  from  these  stable  foundations, 
no  change,  no  convulsion,  can  shake  off  the  vast  frame  of  human  inte- 
rests and  concerns. 

Allied  to  justice,  as  justice  is  allied  to  holiness,  is  the  truth  of  God, 
which  manifestation  of  the  moral  character  of  God  has  also  an  eminent 
place  in  the  inspired  volume.  His  paths  are  said  to  be  "  mercy  and 
truth," — his  words,  ways,  and  judgments,  to  be  true  and  righteous.  u  His 
mercy  is  great  to  the  heavens  and  his  truth  to  the  clouds.  He  keepeth 
truth  for  ever.  The  strength  of  Israel  will  not  lie.  It  is  impossible 
that  God  should  lie.  He  is  the  faithful  God  which  keepeth  covenant 
and  mercy  :  he  abideth  faithful."  From  these  and  other  passages,  it  is 
plain  that  truth  is  contemplated  by  the  sacred  writers  in  its  two  great 
branches,  veracity  and  faithfulness,  both  of  which  they  ascribe  to  God, 
with  an  emphasis  and  vigour  of  phrase  which  show  at  once  their  belief 
of  the  facts,  their  trust  and  confidence  in  them,  and  the  important  place 
which  they  considered  the  existence  of  such  a  being  to  hold  in  a  system 
of  revealed  religion.  It  forms,  indeed,  the  basis  of  all  religion,  to  know 
the  true  God,  and  to  know  that  that  God  is  true.  In  the  Bible  this  must 
of  necessity  be  fully  and  satisfactorily  declared,  because  of  the  other 
discoveries  which  it  makes  of  the  Divine  nature.  If  it  reveals  to  us  as 
the  only  living  and  true  God,  a  being  of  knowledge  infinitely  perfect, 
then  he  himself  cannot  be  deceived  ;  and  his  knowledge  is  true,  because 
conformable  to  the  exact  and  perfect  reality  of  things.  If  he  is  holy, 
without  spot  or  defect,  then  his  word  must  be  conformable  to  his  know- 
ledge, will,  and  intention.  On  this  account  he  cannot  deceive  others. 
In  all  his  dealings  with  us,  he  uses  a  perfect  sincerity,  and  represents 
things  as  they  are,  whether  laws  to  be  obeyed,  or  doctrines  to  be  believed. 
All  is  perfect  and  absolute  veracity  in  his  communications.  *  God  is 
light,  and  in  him  is  no  darkness  at  all." 

His  faithfulness  relates  to  his  engagements,  and  is  confirmed  to  us 
vrith  the  same  certainty  as  his  veracity.  If  he  enters  into  engagements, 
promises,  and  covenants,  he  acts  with  perfect  freedom.  These  are  acta 
of  grace  to  which  he  is  under  no  compulsion,  and  they  can  never,  there- 
fore, be  reluctant  engagements  which  he  would  wish  to  violate  ;  because 
they  flow  from  a  ceaseless  and  changeless  inclination  to  bestow  benefits, 
and  a  delight  in  the  exercise  of  goodness.     They  can  never  be  made  in 

Providence.  "  Quis  enim  bonus  parens  mihi  ignoscat,  ac  non  oderit  hanc  animi 
mci  firmitatem,  si  quis  in  me  est  alius  usus  vocis,  quam  ut  incusem  deos,  superstea 
omnium  meorum,  nullam  terras  despicere  providentiam  tester?"  (Insht.  Lib.  6.) 


SECOND.}  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  445 

haste  or  unadvisedly,  for  the  wholfi  case  of  his  creatures  to  the  end  of 
time  is  before  him,  and  no  circumstances  can  arise  which  to  him  are 
new  or  unforeseen.  He  cannot  want  the  power  to  fulfil  his  promises, 
because  he  is  omnipotent ;  he  cannot  promise  beyond  his  ability  to  make 
good,  because  his  fulness  is  infinite ;  finally,  "  he  cannot  deny  himself," 
because  "  he  is  not  a  man  that  he  should  lie,  nor  the  son  of  man  that  he 
should  repent ;"  and  thus  every  promise  which  he  has  made  is  guaran- 
teed, as  well  by  his  natural  attributes  of  wisdom,  power,  and  sufficiency, 
as  by  his  perfect  moral  rectitude.  In  this  manner  the  true  God  stands 
contrasted  with  the  "  lying  vanities"  of  the  heathen  deities ;  and  in  this 
his  character  of  truth,  the  everlasting  foundations  of  his  religion  are 
laid.  That  changes  not,  because  the  doctrines  taught  in  it  are  in  them- 
selves true  without  error,  and  can  never  be  displaced  by  new  and  better 
discoveries ;  it  fails  not,  because  every  gracious  promise  must  by  him 
be  accomplished ;  and  thus  the  religion  of  the  Bible  continues  from  age 
to  age,  and  from  day  to  day,  as  much  a  matter  of  personal  experience 
as  it  ever  was.  In  its  doctrines  it  can  never  become  an  antiquated 
theory,  for  truth  is  eternal.  In  its  practical  application  it  can  never 
become  foreign  to  man,  for  it  enters  now,  and  must  ever  enter  into  his 
concerns,  his  duties,  hopes,  and  comforts,  to  the  end  of  time.  We  know 
what  is  true  as  an  object  of  belief,  because  the  God  of  truth  has  declared 
it ;  and  we  know  what  is  faithful,  and,  therefore,  the  object  of  unlimit- 
ed trust,  because  "  he  is  faithful  that  hath  promised."  Whether,  there- 
fore, in  the  language  of  the  old  divines,  we  consider  God's  word  as 
"  declaratory  or  promisory,"  declaring  "  how  things  are  or  how  they  shall 
be,"  or  promising  to  us  certain  benefits,  its  absolute  truth  is  confirmed 
to  us  by  the  truth  of  the  Divine  nature  itself;  it  claims  the  undivided 
assent  of  our  judgment,  and  the  unsuspicious  trust  of  our  hearts ;  and 
presents,  at  once,  a  sure  resting  place  for  our  opinions,  and  a  faithful 
object  for  our  confidence. 

Such  are  the  adorable  attributes  of  the  ever-blessed  God  which  are 
distinctly  revealed  to  us  in  his  own  word  ;  in  addition  to  which  there 
are  other  and  more  general  ascriptions  of  excellence  to  him,  which 
though,  from  the  very  greatness  of  the  subject,  and  the  imperfection  of 
human  conception  and  human  language,  they  are  vague  and  indeter- 
minate, serve,  for  this  very  reason,  to  heighten  our  conceptions  of  him, 
and  to  set  before  the  humbled  and  awed  spirit  of  man  an  overwhelm- 
ing height  and  depth  of  majesty  and  glory. 

God  is  perfect.  We  are  thus  taught  to  ascribe  to  him  every  natural 
and  moral  excellence  we  can  conceive ;  and  when  we  have  done  that, 
we  are  to  conclude,  that  if  any  nameless  and  unconceived  glory  be  neces- 
sary to  complete  a  perfection  which  excludes  all  deficiency ;  which  is 
capable  of  no  excess  ;  which  is  unalterably  full  and  complete — it  exists 
m  him.     Every  attribute  in  him  is  perfect  in  its  kind,  and  is  the  most 


446  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

elevated  of  its  kind.  It  is  perfect  in  its  degree,  not  falling  in  the  least 
below  the  standard  of  the  highest  excellence,  either  in  our  conceptions, 
or  those  of  angels,  or  in  the  possible  nature  of  things  itself.  These 
various  perfections  are  systematically  distributed  into  incommunicable, 
as  self  existence,  immensity,  eternity,  omniscience,  omnipotence,  and 
the  like,  because  there  is  nothing  in  creatures  which  could  be  signified 
by  such  names ;  no  common  properties  of  which  these  could  be  the 
common  terms,  and  therefore,  they  remain  peculiarly  and  exclusively 
proper  to  God  himself:  and  communicable,  such  as  wisdom,  goodness, 
holiness,  justice,  and  truth,  because,  under  the  same  names,  they  may 
be  spoken  of  him  and  of  us,  though  in  a  sense  infinitely  inferior.  But 
all  these  perfections  form  the  one  glorious  perfection  and  fulness  of  ex- 
cellence which  constitutes  the  Divine  nature.  They  are  not  accidents, 
separable  from  that  nature,  or  superadded  to  it ;  but  they  are  his  very 
nature  itself,  which  is  and  must  be  perfectly  wise  and  good,  holy  and 
just,  almighty  and  all-sufficient.  This  idea  of  positive  perfection,  which 
runs  through  the  whole  of  Scripture,  warrants  us  also  to  conclude,  that 
where  negative  attributes  are  ascribed  to  God,  they  imply  always  a 
positive  excellence.  Immortality  implies  "  an  undecaying  fulness  of  life ;" 
and  when  God  is  said  to  be  invisible,  the  meaning  is,  that  he  is  a  being 
of  too  high  an  excellency,  of  too  glorious  and  transcendent  a  nature,  to 
be  subject  to  the  observation  of  sense. 

God  is  all-sufficient.  This  is  another  of  those  declarations  of  Scrip, 
ture,  which  exalt  our  views  of  God  into  a  mysterious,  unbounded,  and 
undefined  amplitude  of  grandeur.  It  is  sufficiency,  absolute  plenitude 
and  fulness  from  himself,  eternally  rising  out  of  his  own  perfections ; 
for  himself,  so  that  he  is  all  to  himself,  and  depends  upon  no  other 
being ;  and  for  all  that  communication,  however  large  and  however 
lasting,  on  which  the  whole  universe  of  existent  creatures  depends,  and 
from  which  future  creations,  if  any  take  place,  can  only  be  supplied. 
The  same  vast  thought  is  expressed  by  St.  Paul,  in  the  phrase  "  All  in 
all,"  which,  as  Howe  justly  observes,  (Posthumous  Works,)  "  is  a  most 
godlike  phrase,  wherein  God  doth  speak  of  himself  with  Divine  great- 
ness and  majestic  sense.  Here  is  an  all  in  all  ;  an  all  comprehended, 
and  an  all  comprehending ;  one  create,  and  the  other  uncreate ;  the 
former  contained  in  the  latter,  and  lost  like  a  drop  in  the  ocean,  in  the 
all-comprehending,  all-pervading,  all-sustaining  uncreated  fulness."  "  In 
him  we  live,  and  move,  and  have  our  being." 

God  is  unsearchable.  All  we  see  or  hear  of  him  is  faint  and  shadowy 
manifestation.  Beyond  the  highest  glory,  there  is  yet  an  unpierced  and 
unapproached  light,  a  track  of  intellectual  and  moral  splendour  untra- 
velled  by  the  thoughts  of  the  contemplating  and  adoring  spirits  who  are 
nearest  to  his  throne.  The  manifestation  of  this  nature  of  God,  never 
fully  to  be  revealed,  because  infinite,  is  represented  as  constituting  the 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  447 

reward  and  the  felicity  of  heaven.  This  is  "  to  see  God.  '  This  is  "  to 
be  for  ever  with  the  Lord."  This  is  to  behold  his  glory  as  in  a  glass, 
with  unveiled  face,  and  to  be  changed  into  his  image,  from  glory  to 
glory,  in  boundless  progression  and  infinite  approximation.  Yet,  after 
all,  it  will  be  as  true,  after  countless  ages  spent  in  heaven  itself,  as  in 
the  present  state,  that  none  by  "  searching  can  find  out  God/'  that  is, 
"to  perfection."  He  will  then  be  "a  God  that  hideth  himself;"  and 
widely  as  the  illumination  may  extend,  "  clouds  and  darkness  will  still 
be  round  about  him. — His  glorious  name  is  exalted  above  all  blessing 
and  praise. — Thine,  O  Lord  is  the  greatness,  and  the  power,  and  the 
glory,  and  the  victory,  and  the  majesty ;  for  all  that  is  in  the  heaven  and 
in  the  earth  is  thine  ;  thine  is  the  kingdom,  O  Lord,  and  thou  art  exalted 
as  head  over  all. — Blessed  be  the  Lord  God  of  Israel,  who  only  doelh 
wondrous  things ;  and  blessed  be  his  glorious  name  for  ever,  and  let 
tJie  whole  earth  be  filled  with  his  glory.     Amen  and  Amen." 


CHAPTER  VIII. 

God. — The  Trinity  in  Unity. 

We  now  approach  this  great  mystery  of  our  faith,  for  the  declaration 
of  which  we  are  so  exclusively  indebted  to  the  Scriptures  that  not  only 
is  it  incapable  of  proof  d  priori  ;  but  it  derives  no  direct  confirmatory 
evidence  from  the  existence,  and  wise  and  orderly  arrangement,  of  the 
works  of  God.  It  stands,  however,  on  the  unshaken  foundation  of  his 
own  word ;  that  testimony  which  he  ha3  given  of  himself  in  both  Tes- 
taments ;  and  if  we  see  no  traces  of  it,  as  of  his  simple  being  and  ope- 
rative perfections,  in  the  works  of  his  creative  power  and  wisdom,  the 
reason  is  that  creation  in  itself  could  not  be  the  medium  of  manifesting, 
or  of  illustrating  it.  Some,  it  is  true,  have  thought  the  trinity  of  Divine 
persons  in  the  unity  of  the  Godhead  demonstrable  by  natural  reason. 
Poiret  and  others,  formerly,  and  Professor  Kidd,  recently,  have  all 
attempted  to  prove,  not  that  this  doctrine  implies  a  contradiction,  but 
that  it  cannot  be  denied  without  a  contradiction  ;  and  that  it  is  impossi- 
ble but  that  the  Divine  nature  should  so  exist.  The  former  endeavours 
to  prove  that  neither  creation,  nor  indeed  any  action  in  the  Deity  was 
possible,  but  from  this  tri-unity.  But  his  arguments,  were  they  adduced, 
would  scarcely  be  considered  satisfactory,  even  by  those  whose  belief 
in  the  doctrine  is  most  settled.  The  latter  argues  from  notions  of  dura- 
tion and  space,  which  themselves  have  not  hitherto  been  satisfactorily 
established,  and  if  they  had,  would  yield  but  slight  assistance  in  such  an 
investigation.  This,  however,  may  be  said  respecting  such  attempts, 
that  they  at  least  show,  that  men,  quite  as  eminent  for  strength  of 


448  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

understanding,  and  logical  acuteness,  as  any  who  have  decried  the  doc- 
trine  of  the  trinity  as  irrational  and  contradictory,  find  no  such  opposi- 
tion in  it  to  the  reason,  or  to  the  nature  of  things,  as  the  latter  pretend 
to  be  almost  self  evident.  The  very  opposite  conclusions  reached  by 
the  parties,  when  they  reason  the  matter  by  the  light  of  their  own  intel- 
lect only,  is  a  circumstance,  it  is  true,  which  lessens  our  confidence  in 
pretended  rational  demonstrations ;  but  it  gives  neither  party  a  right  to 
assume  any  thing  at  the  expense  of  the  other.  Such  failures  ought, 
indeed,  to  produce  in  us  a  proper  sense  of  the  inadequacy  of  human 
powers  to  search  the  deep  things  of  God  ;  and  they  forcibly  exhibit  the 
necessity  of  Divine  teaching  in  every  thing  which  relates  to  such  sub- 
jects, and  demand  from  us  an  entire  docility  of  mind,  where  God  him- 
self has  condescended  to  become  our  instructer. 

More  objectionable  than  the  attempts  which  have  been  made  to  prove 
this  mystery  by  mere  argument,  are  pretensions  to  explain  it ;  whether, 
by  what  logicians  call  immanent  acts  of  Deity  upon  himself,  from  whence 
arise  the  relations  of  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost ;  or  by  assuming 
that  the  trinity  is  the  same  as  the  three  "  essential  primalities,  or  active 
powers  in  the  Divine  essence,  power,  intellect,  and  will,"  (6)  for  which 
they  invent  a  kind  of  personification ;  or,  by  alleging  that  the  three 
persons  are  "  Deus  seipsum  intelligens,  Deus  a  seipso  intellectus,  et  Deus 
a  seipso  amatus."  All  such  hypotheses  either  darken  the  counsel  they 
would  explain,  by  "  words  without  knowledge,"  or  assume  principles, 
which,  when  expanded  into  their  full  import,  are  wholly  inconsistent 
with  the  doctrine  as  it  is  announced  in  the  Scripture,  and  which  their 
advocates  have  professed  to  receive. 

It  is  a  more  innocent  theory,  that  types  and  symbols  of  the  mystery 
of  the  trinity  are  found  in  various  natural  objects.  From  the  fathers, 
many  have  illustrated  the  trinity  of  persons  in  the  same  Divine  nature 
by  the  analogy  of  three  or  more  men  having  each  the  same  human 
nature ;  by  the  union  of  two  natures  of  man  in  one  person ;  by  the 
trinity  of  intellectual  primary  faculties  in  the  soul,  power,  intellect,  and 
will,  "  posse,  scire,  velle,"  which  they  say  are  not  three  parts  of  the  soul, 
"  it  being  the  whole  soul  qua,  potest,  qua  intelligit,  et  qum  vult ;"  by 
motion,  light,  and  heat  in  the  sun,  with  many  others.  Of  these  instances, 
however,  we  may  observe,  that  even  granting  them  all  to  be  philoso- 
phically true,  they  cannot  be  proofs  ;  they  are  seldom,  or  very  inappli- 
cablv  illustrations ;  and  the  best  use  to  which  they  have  ever  been  put, 
or  of  which  they  are  indeed  capable,  is  to  silence  the  absurd  objections 
which  are  sometimes  drawn  from  things  merely  natural  and  finite,  bv 
answers  which  natural  and  finite  things  supply ;  though  both  the  objec- 

(6)  "Potentia,  Intellectus,  et  Voluntas,"  or  "Potentia,  Sapientia,  et  Amor." — 
(Campanclla,  Richardus,  and  others,) 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL     INSTITUTES.  449 

tions  and  the  answers  often  prove,  that  the  subject  in  question  is  too 
elevated  and  peculiar  to  be  approached  by  such  analogies.  Of  these 
illustrations,  as  they  have  been  sometimes  called,  Baxter,  though 
inclined  to  make  too  much  of  them,  well  enough  observes, — "  It  is  one 
thing  to  show  in  the  creatures  a  clear  demonstration  of  this  trinity  of 
persons,  by  showing  an  effect  that  fully  answereth  it,  and  another  thing 
to  show  such  vestigia,  adumbration,  or  image  of  it,  as  hath  those  dissi- 
militudes which  must  be  allowed  in  any  created  image  of  God.  This 
is  it  which  I  am  to  do."  {Christian  Religion.)  This  excellent  man  has 
been  charged,  perhaps  a  little  too  hastily,  with  adopting  one  of  the 
theories  given  above,  as  his  own  view  of  the  trinity,  a  trinity  of  per- 
sonified attributes,  rather  than  of  real  persons.  It  must,  however,  be 
acknowledged,  that  he  has  given  some  occasion  for  the  allegation,  but 
his  conclusion  is  worthy  of  himself,  and  instructive  to  all : — "  But  for 
my  own  part,  as  I  unfeignedly  account  the  doctrine  of  the  trinity  the 
very  sum  and  kernel  of  the  Christian  religion,  (as  exprest  in  our  bap- 
tism,) and  Athanasius  his  creed,  the  best  explication  of  it  that  ever  I 
read;  so  I  think  it  very  unmeet  in  these  tremendous  mysteries  to  go 
farther  than  we  have  God's  own  light  to  guide  us."  (Christ.  Religion.) 

The  term  person  has  been  variously  taken.  It  signifies  in  ordinary 
language  an  individual  substance  of  a  rational  or  intelligent  nature.  (7) 
In  the  strict  philosophical  sense,  it  has  been  said,  two  or  more  persons 
would  be  two  or  more  distinct  beings.  If  the  term  person  were  so 
applied  to  the  trinity  in  the  Godhead,  a  plurality  of  Gods  would  follow ; 
while  if  taken  in  what  has  been  called  a  political  sense,  personality 
would  be  no  more  than  relation,  arising  out  of  office.  Personality  in 
God  is,  therefore,  not  to  be  understood  in  either  of  the  above  senses,  if 
respect  be  paid  to  the  testimony  of  Scripture.  God  is  one  being ;  this 
is  admitted  on  both  sides.  But  he  is  more  than  one  being  in  three  rela- 
tions ;  for  personal  acts,  that  is,  such  acts  as  we  are  used  to  ascribe  to 
distinct  persons,  and  which  we  take  most  unequivocally  to  characterize 
personality,  are  ascribed  to  each.  The  Scripture  doctrine  therefore  is, 
that  the  persons  are  not  separate,  but  distinct ;  that  they  "  are  united 
persons,  or  persons  having  no  separate  existence,  and  that  they  are  so 
united  as  to  be  but  one  being,  one  God."  In  other  words,  that  the  one 
Divine  nature  exists  under  the  personal  distinction  of  Father,  Son,  and 
Holy  Ghost. 

"  The  word  person,"  Howe  remarks,  "  must  not  be  taken  to  signify 
the  same  thing,  when  spoken  of  God  and  of  ourselves."  That  is,  not  in 
all  respects.  Nevertheless  it  is  the  only  word  which  can  express  the 
sense  of  those  •  passages,  in  which  personal  acts  are  unequivocally 
ascribed  to  each  of  the  Divine  subsistences  in  the  Godhead.     Perhaps, 

(7)  It  is  defined  by  Occam,  "  Supposition  intellectuale." 
Vol.  I.  29 


450  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

however,  one  may  be  allowed  to  doubt  whether,  in  all  respects,  the 
term  person  may  not  be  taken  to  signify  "  the  same  thing"  in  us  and  in 
God.  It  is  true,  as  before  observed,  that  three  persons  among  men  or 
angels,  would  convey  the  idea  of  three  different  and  separate  beings ; 
but  it  may  be  questioned  whether  this  arises  from  any  thing  necessarily 
conveyed  in  the  idea  of  personality.  We  have  been  accustomed  to 
observe  personality  only  in  connection  with  separate  beings ;  but  this 
separation  seems  to  be  but  a  circumstance  connected  With  personality, 
and  not  any  thing  which  arises  out  of  personality  itself.  Dr.  Waterland 
clearly  defines  the  term  person,  as  it  must  be  understood  in  this  contro- 
versy, to  be  "an  intelligent  agent,  having  the  distinct  characters,  I, 
thou,  he."  That  one  being  should  necessarily  conclude  one  person 
only,  is,  however,  what  none  can  prove  from  the  nature  of  things ;  and 
all  that  can  be  affirmed  on  the  subject  is,  that  it  is  so  in  fact  among  all 
intelligent  creatures  with  which  we  are  acquainted.  Among  them,. dis- 
tinct persons  are  only  seen  in  separate  beings,  but  this  separation' of 
being  is  clearly  an  accident  of  personality ;  for  the  circumstance  of 
separation  forms  no  part  of  the  idea  of  personality  itself,  which  is  con- 
fined to  a  capability  of  performing  personal  acts.  In  God,  the  distinct 
persons  are  represented  as  having  a  common  foundation  in  one  being : 
but  this  union  also  forms  no  part  of  the  idea  of  personality,  nor  can  be 
proved  inconsistent  with  it.  The  manner  of  the  union,  it  is  granted,  is 
incomprehensible,  and  so  is  Deity  himself,  and  every  essential  attribute 
with  which  his  nature  is  invested. 

It  has  been  said,  that  the  term  person  is  not  used  in  Scripture,  and 
some  who  believe  the  doctrine  it  expresses,  have  objected  to  its  use. 
To  such  it  may  be  sufficient  to  reply,  that  provided  that  which  is  clearly 
stated  in  Scripture,  be  compendiously  expressed  by  this  term,  and  cannot 
so  well  be  expressed,  except  by  an  inconvenient  periphrasis,  it  ought  to 
be  retained.  They  who  believe  such  a  distinction  in  the  Godhead  as 
amounts  to  a  personal  distinction,  will  not  generally  be  disposed  to  sur- 
render a  word  which  keeps  up  the  force  of  the  Scriptural  idea  :  and  they 
who  do  not,  object  not  to  the  term,  but  to  the  doctrine  which,  it  conveys. 
It  is  not,  however,  so  clear,  that  there  is  not  Scripture  warrant  for  the 
term  itself.  Our  translators  so  concluded,  when  in  Heb.  i,  3,  they  call 
the  Son,  "the  express  image"  of  the  "person"  of  the  Father.  The  ori- 
ginal word  is  hypostasis ;  which  was  understood  by  the  Greek  fathers 
to  signify  a  person,  though  not,  it  is  true,  exclusively  so  used.  (8)  The 
sense  of  vxatfrc/Mis  in  this  passage,  must,  however,  be  considered  as  fixed 

(8)  "  Nonnunquam  vno^aan  pro  eo  quod  nos  ivotav  dicimus  et  vise  versa  vo? 
ovota  pro  eo  quod  nos  wo^aatv  appellamus,  ab  ipsis  accepta  fuit." — Bishop  Bull 
rirosaois,  it  ought,  however,  to  be  observed,  was  used  in  the  sense  of  person  before 
the  council  of  Nice,  by  many  Christian  writers,  and,  in  the  ancient  Greek  Lexi- 
cons, it  is  explained  by  apoouimp,  and  rendered  by  the  Latins  petsorn. 


SECOND.  J  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  451 

by  the  apostle's  argument,  by  all  who  allow  the  Divinity  of  the  Son  of 
God.  For  the  Son  being  called  "  the  express  image"  of  the  Father,  a 
distinction  between  the  Son  and  the  Father  is  thus  unquestionably 
expressed;  but  if  there  be  but  one  God,  and  the  Son  be  Divine,  the  dis- 
tinction here  expressed  cannot  be  a  distinction  of  essence,  and  must 
therefore  be  a  personal  one.  Not  from  the  Father's  essence,  but  from 
the  Father's  hypostasis  or  person,  can  he  be  distinguished.  This  seems 
sufficient  to  have  warranted  the  use  of  hypostasis  in  the  sense  of  person 
in  the  early  Church,  and  to  authorize  the  latter  term  in  our  own  lan- 
guage. In  fact,  it  was  by  the  adoption  of  the  two  great  theological 
terms  ofiostfro^  and  vcrotfraflV  that  the  early  Church  at  length  reared  up 
impregnable  barriers  against  the  two  leading  heresies  into  which  almost 
every  modification  of  error  as  to  the  person  of  Christ  may  be  resolved. 
The  former,  which  is  compounded  of  o/xog-,  the  same,  and  atfia,  substance, 
Stood  opposed  to  the  Arians,  who  denied  that  Christ  was  of  the  substance 
of  the  Father,  that  is,  that  he  was  truly  God ;  the  latter,  when  fixed  in 
the  sense  of  person,  resisted  the  Sabellian  scheme,  which  allowed  the 
Divinity  'of  the  Son  and  Spirit,  but  denied  their  pjoper  personality. 

Among  the  leading  writers  in  defence  of  the  trinity,  there  are  some 
shades  of  difference  in  opinion,  as  to  what  constitutes  the  unity  of  the 
three  persons  in  the  Godhead.  Doddridge  thus  expresses  these  leading 
differences  among  the  orthodox  : — 

"  Mr.  Howe  seems  to  suppose,  that  there  are  three  distinct,  eternal 
spirits,  or  distinct  intelligent  hypostases,  each  having  his  own  distinct, 
singular,  intelligent  nature,  united  in  such  an  inexplicable  manner,  as 
that  upon  account  of  their  perfect  harmony,  consent,  and  affection,  to 
which  he  adds  their  mutual  self  consciousness,  they  may  be  called  the 
one  God,  as  properly  as  the  different  corporeal,  sensitive,  and  intellectual 
natures  united  may  be  called  one  man. 

"  Dr.  Waterland,  Dr.  A.  Taylor,  with  the  rest  of  the  Athanasians, 
assert  three  proper  distinct  persons,  entirely  equal  to,  and  independent 
upon  each  other,  yet  making  up  one  and  the  same  being ;  and  that, 
though  there  may  appear  many  things  inexplicable  in  the  scheme,  it  is 
to  be  charged  to  the  weakness  of  our  understanding,  and  not  to  the 
absurdity  of  the  doctrine  itself. 

"Bishop  Pearson,  with  whom  Bishop  Bull  also  agrees,  is  of  opinion, 
that  though  God  the  Father  is  the  fountain  of  the  Deity,  the  whole  Di- 
vine nature  is  communicated  from  the  Father  to  the  Son,  and  from  both 
to  the  Spirit,  yet  so  as  that  the  Father  and  the  Son  are  not  separate,  nor 
separable  from  the  Divinity,  but  do  still  exist  in  it,  and  are  most  inti 
mately  united  to  it.     This  was  also  Dr.  Owen's  scheme."  (Lectures.) 

The  last  view  appears  to  comport  most  exactly  with  the  testimony  of 
Scripture,  which  shall  be  presently  adduced. 

Before  we  enter  upon  the  examination  of  the  Scriptural  proofs  of  the 


452  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

trinity,  it  may  be  necessary  to  impress  the  reader  with  a  sense  of  the 
importance  of  this  revealed  doctrine ;  and  the  more  so  as  it  has  been  a 
part  of  the  subtle  warfare  of  the  enemies  of  this  fundamental  branch  of 
the  common  faith,  to  represent  it  as  of  little  consequence,  or  as  a  matter 
of  useless  speculation.  Thus  Dr.  Priestley,  "  All  that  can  be  said  for  it 
is,  that  the  doctrine,  however  improbable  in  itself,  is  necessary  to  explain 
some  particular  texts  of  Scripture  ;  and  that,  if  it  had  not  been  for  those 
particular  texts  we  should  have  found  no  want  of  it,  for  there  is  neither 
any  fact  in  nature,  nor  any  one  purpose  of  morals,  which  are  the  object 
and  end  of  all  religion,  that  requires  it."  (History  of  Early  Opinions.) 
The  non-importance  of  the  doctrine  has  been  a  favourite  subject  with 
its  opposers  in  all  ages,  that  by  allaying  all  fears  in  the  minds  of  the 
unwary,  as  to  the  consequences  of  the  opposite  errors,  they  might  be 
put  off  their  guard,  and  be  the  more  easily  persuaded  to  part  with  "  the 
faith  delivered  to  the  saints."     The  answer  is,  however,  obvious. 

1.  The  knowledge  of  God  is  fundamental  to  religion;  and  as  we 
know  nothing  of  him  but  what  he  has  been  pleased  to  reveal,  and  as 
these  revelations  have  all  moral  ends,  and  are  designed  to  promote  piety 
and  not  to  gratify  curiosity,  all  that  he  has  revealed  of  himself  in  par- 
ticular, must  partake  of  that  character  of  fundamental  importance,  which 
belongs  to  the  knowledge  of  God  in  the  aggregate.  "  This  is  life  eternal, 
that  they  might  know  thee,  the  only  true  God,  and  Jesus  Christ  whom 
thou  hast  sent."  Nothing,  therefore,  can  disprove  the  fundamental  im- 
portance of  the  trinity  in  unity,  but  that  which  will  disprove  it  to  be  a 
doctrine  of  Scripture. 

2.  Dr.  Priestley  allows,  that  this  doctrine  "  is  necessary  to  explain 
some  particular  texts  of  Scripture."  This  alone  is  sufficient  to  mark  its 
importance ;  especially  as  it  can  be  shown,  that  these  "  particular  texts 
of  Scripture"  comprehend  a  very  large  portion  of  the  sacred  volume ; 
that  they  are  scattered  throughout  almost  all  the  books  of  both  Testa- 
ments ;  that  they  are  not  incidentally  introduced  only,  but  solemnly  laid 
down  as  revelations  of  the  nature  of  God  ;  and  that  they  manifestly  give 
the  tone  both  to  the  thinking  and  the  phrase  of  the  sacred  writers  on 
many  other  weighty  subjects.  That  which  is  necessary  to  explain  so 
many  passages  of  holy  writ,  and  without  which,  they  are  so  incorrigibly 
unmeaning,  that  the  Socinians  have  felt  themselves  obliged  to  submit 
to  their  evidence,  or  to  expunge  them  from  the  inspired  record,  carries 
with  it  an  importance  of  the  highest  character.  So  important,  indeed, 
is  it,  upon  the  showing  of  these  opposers  of  the  truth  themselves,  that 
we  can  only  preserve  the  Scriptures  by  admitting  it ;  for  they,  first  by 
excepting  to  the  genuineness  of  certain  passages,  then  by  questioning 
the  inspiration  of  whole  books,  and,  finally,  of  the  greater  part,  if 
not  the  whole  New  Testament,  have  nearly  left  themselves  as  destitute 
of  a  revelation  from  God  as  infidels  themselves.     No  homage  more  ex- 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  453 

pressive  has  ever  been  paid  to  this  doctrine,  as  the  doctrine  of  the  Scrip, 
tures,  than  the  liberties  thus  taken  with  the  Bible,  by  those  who  have 
denied  it ;  no  stronger  proof  can  be  offered  of  its  importance,  than  that 
the  Bible  cannot  be  interpreted  upon  any  substituted  theory,  they  them- 
pelves  being  the  judges. 

3.  It  essentially  affects  our  views  of  God  as  the  object  of  our  worship, 
whether  we  regard  him  as  one  in  essence,  and  one  in  person,  or  admit 
that  in  the  unity  of  this  Godhead  there  are  three  equally  Divine  persons. 
These  are  two  very  different  conceptions.  Both  cannot  be  true.  The 
God  of  those  who  deny  the  trinity,  is  not  the  God  of  those  who  worship 
the  trinity  in  unity,  nor  on  the  contrary ;  so  that  one  or  the  other  wor- 
ships what  is  "  nothing  in  the  world ;"  and,  for  any  reality  in  the  object 
of  worship,  might  as  well  worship  a  pagan  idol,  which  also,  says  St. 
Paul,  "  is  nothing  in  the  world."  "  If  God  be  Father,  Son,  and  Holy 
Ghost,  the  duties  owing  to  God  will  be  duties  owing  to  that  triune  dis- 
tinction, which  must  be  paid  accordingly ;  and  whoever  leaves  any  of 
them  out  of  his  idea  of  God,  comes  so  far  short  of  honouring  God  per- 
fectly, and  of  serving  him  in  proportion  to  the  manifestations  he  has 
made  of  himself."  (Waterland.) 

As  the  object  of  our  worship  is  affected  by  our  respective  views  on  this 
great  subject,  so  also  its  character.  We  are  between  the  extremes  of 
pure  and  acceptable  devotion,  and  of  gross  and  offensive  idolatry,  and 
must  run  to  one  or  the  other.  If  the  doctrine  of  the  trinity  be  true, 
then  those  who  deny  it  do  not  worship  the  God  of  the  Scriptures,  but  a 
fiction  of  their  own  framing ;  if  it  be  false,  the  trinitarian,  by  paying 
Divine  honours  to  the  Son,  and  to  the  Holy  Ghost,  is  equally  guilty  of 
idolatry,  though  in  another  mode. 

Now  it  is  surely  important  to  determine  this ;  and  which  is  the  most 
likely  to  have  fallen  into  this  false  and  corrupt  worship,  the  very  prima 
facie  evidence  may  determine  : — the  trinitarian,  who  has  the  letter,  and 
plain,  common-sense  interpretation  of  Scripture  for  his  warrant ; — or  he 
who  confesses  that  he  must  resort  to  all  the  artifices  of  criticism,  and 
boldly  challenge  the  inspiration  of  an  authenticated  volume,  to  get  rid  of 
the  evidence  which  it  exhibits  against  him,  if  taken  in  its  first  and  most 
obvious  meaning.  (9)  It  is  not  now  attempted  to  prove  the  Socinian 
heresy  from  the  Scriptures;  this  has  long  been  given  up,  and  the  main 
effort  of  all  modern  writers  on  that  side  has  been  directed  to  cavil  at  the 
adduced  proofs  of  the  opposite  doctrine.  They  are  as  to  Scripture  argu- 
ment, wholly  on  the  defensive,  and  thus  allow,  at  least,  that  they  have 
no  direct  warrant  for  their  opinions.  We  acknowledge,  indeed,  that  the 
charge  of  idolatry  would  lie  against  us,  could  we  be  proved  in  error ; 

(9)  St.  Paul  says,  that  all  Scripture  is  given  by  inspiration  of  God;  but  Dr. 
Priestley  tells  us,  that  this  signifies  nothing  more  than  that  the  books  were  written 
by  good  men,  with  the  best  views  and  designs. 


454  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

but  they  seem  to  forget,  that  it  lies  against  them,  should  they  be  in  error ; 
and  that  they  are  in  this  error,  they  themselves  tacitly  acknowledge,  if 
the  Scriptures,  which  they  now  in  great  measure  reject,  must  determine 
the  question.  On  that  authority,  we  may  unhesitatingly  account  them 
idolaters,  worshippers  of  what  "  is  nothing  in  the  world  ;"  and  not  of  the 
God  revealed  in  the  Bible.  (1)  Thus,  the  only  hope  which  is  left  to 
the  Socinian,  is  held  on  the  same  tenure  as  the  hope  of  the  Deist, — the 
forlorn  hope  that  the  Scriptures,  which  he  rejects,  are  not  true ;  for 
if  those  texts  they  reject,  and  those  books  which  they  hold  of  no  autho- 
rity be  established,  then  this  whole  charge,  and  its  consequences,  lie  full 
against  them. 

4.  Dr.  Priestley  objects,  "  that  no  fact  in  nature,  nor  any  one  pur- 
pose of  morals,  requires  this  doctrine."  The  first  part  of  the  objection 
is  futile  and  trifling,  if  he  meant  that  the  facts  of  nature  do  not  require 
this  doctrine  for  their  philosophical  illustration ;  for  who  seeks  the  ex- 
plication of  natural  phenomena  in  theological  doctrines  ?  But  there  is 
one  view  in  which  even  right  views  of  the  facts  of  nature  depend  upon 
proper  views  of  the  Godhead.  All  nature  has  a  theological  reason,  and 
a  theological  end ;  and  its  interpretation  in  these  respects,  rests  wholly 
upon  the  person  and  office  of  our  Lord.  All  things  were  made  by  the 
Son  and  for  him ;  a  theological  view  of  the  natural  world,  which  is  large 
or  contracted,  emphatic  or  spiritless,  according  to  the  conceptions  which 
we  form  of  the  Son  of  God,  "  by  whom,  and  for  whom"  it  was  built,  and 
is  preserved.  The  reascn  why  the  present  circumstances  of  the  natural 
world  are,  as  before  shown,  neither  wholly  perfect,  nor  without  large 
remains  of  original  perfection ;  neither  accordant  with  the  condition  of 
condemned,  nor  of  innocent  creatures ;  but  adapted  only  to  such  a  state 
of  man  as  the  redeeming  scheme  supposes ;  cannot,  on  the  Socinian 
hypothesis,  be  discovered ;  for  that  redeeming  scheme  depends  for  its 
character  upon  our  views  of  the  person  of  Christ.  Without  a  settled 
opinion  on  these  points,  we  are  therefore,  in  this  respect  also,  without 
the  key  to  a  just  and  full  explanation  of  the  theological  character  of 
our  present  residence,  the  world. 

Another  relation  of  the  natural  world  to  theology,  lies  in  its  duration. 
It  was  made  for  Christ ;  and  the  reason  which  determines  that  it  shall 
be  burned  up  centres  in  him.  He  is  appointed  judge,  and  shall  termi- 
nate the  present  scene  of  things,  by  destroying  the  frame  of  the  visible 
universe,  when  the    probation  of  its  inhabitants  shall   have    expired 

(1)  To  this  purpose,  Witsius,  who  shows  that  there  can  be  neither  religion 
nor  worship,  unless  the  trinity  be  acknowledged.  "  Nulla  etiam  religio  est,  nisi 
quis  verum  Deum  colat;  non  colit  verum  Deum,  sed  cerebri  sui  figmentum,  qui 
non  adorat  in  sequali  divinitatis  majestate  Patrem,  Filium,  et  Spiritum  Sanctum. 
I  nunc,  et  doctrinam  earn  ad  praxin  inutilem  esse  clama,  sine  qua  nulla  Fidei 
aut,  Pietatia  Christianse  praxis  esse  potest." 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  455 

I  beg  the  reader  to  turn  to  the  remarks  before  made  on  the  reason  of  a 
general  judgment  being  found  in  the  fact,  that  man  is  under  grace,  and 
not  strict  law  ;  and  the  argument  offered  to  show,  that  if  we  were  under 
a  covenant  of  mere  obedience,  no  cause  for  such  an  appointment,  as 
that  of  a  general  judgment,  would  be  obvious,  If  those  views  be  cor- 
rect, then  the  reason,  both  of  a  general  judgment  and  the  final  destruc- 
tion of  the  world,  is  to  be  found  in  the  system  of  redemption,  and 
consequently  in  such  views  of  the  person  of  Christ,  as  are  not  found  in 
the  Socinian  scheme.  The  conclusion  therefore  is,  that  as  "  to  facts  in 
nature,"  even  they  are  intimately  connected,  in  several  very  important 
respects,  which  no  wise  man  can  overlook,  with  the  doctrine  of  the 
trinity.  Socinianism  cannot  explain  the  peculiar  physical  state  of  the 
world  as  connected  with  a  state  of  trial ;  and  the  general  judgment, 
and  the  "  end  of  all  things,"  bear  no  relation  to  its  theology. 

The  connection  of  the  orthodox  doctrine  with  morals  is,  of  course, 
still  more  direct  and  striking ;  and  dim  must  have  been  that  intellectual 
eye  which  could  not  discern  that,  granting  to  the  believers  in  the  trinity 
their  own  principles,  its  relation  to  morals  is  vital  and  essential.  Whe- 
ther those  principles  are  supported  by  the  Scripture,  is  another  con- 
sideration. If  they  could  be  disproved,  then  the  doctrine  ought  to  be 
rejected  on  a  higher  ground  than  that  here  urged ;  but  to  attempt  to 
push  it  aside,  on  the  pretence  of  its  having  no  connection  with  morals, 
was  but  a  very  unworthy  mode  of  veiling  the  case.  For  what  are 
¥  morals,"  but  conformity  to  a  Divine  law,  which  law  must  take  its  cha- 
racter from  its  author  ?  The  trinitarian  scheme  is  essentially  connected 
with  the  doctrine  of  atonement ;  and  what  is  called  the  unitarian  theory 
necessarily  excludes  atonement.  From  this  arise  opposite  views  of  God, 
as  the  Governor  of  the  world  ;  of  the  law  under  which  we  are  placed  ; 
of  the  nature  and  consequences  of  sin,  the  violation  of  that  law  ;  points 
which  have  an  essential  relation  to  morals,  because  they  affect  the 
nature  of  the  sanctions  which  accompany  the  law  of  God.  He  who  denies 
the  doctrine  of  the  trinity,  and  its  necessary  adjunct,  the  atonement, 
makes  sin  a  matter  of  comparatively  trifling  moment :  God  is  not  strict 
to  punish  it ;  and  if  punishment  follow,  it  is  not  eternal.  Whether,  under 
these  soft  and  easy  views  of  the  law  of  God,  and  of  its  transgression  by 
sin,  morals  can  have  an  equal  sanction,  or  human  conduct  be  equally 
restrained,  are  points  too  obvious  to  be  argued ;  but  a  subject  which 
involves  views  of  the  judicial  character  of  God  so  opposite,  and  of  the 
evil  and  penalty  of  offence,  must  be  considered  as  standing  in  the  most 
intimate  relation  with  every  question  of  morals.  It*is  presumed,  too,  in 
the  objection,  that  faith,  or,  in  other  words,  a  firm  belief  in  the  testimony 
of  God,  is  no  part  of  morality.  It  is,  however,  sufficient  to  place  this 
matter  in  a  very  different  light  if  we  recollect,  that  to  believe  is  so"  much 
a  command  that  the  highest  sanction  is  connected  with  it.     "  He  that 


456  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  iPART 

believeth  shall  be  saved,  and  he  that  believeth  not  shall  be  damned." 
Nothing,  therefore,  can  be  more  important  to  us  than  to  examine,  with- 
out captiousness  and  the  spirit  of  unbelief,  what  God  hath  revealed  as 
the  object  of  our  faith,  since  the  rejection  of  any  revealed  truth,  under 
the  influence  of  pride,  whether  of  the  reason  or  the  heart ;  or  through 
affectation  of  independence  ;  or  love  of  the  world  ;  or  any  other  corrupt 
motive  ;  must  be  certainly  visited  with  punishment :  the  law  of  faith 
having  the  same  authorit}r,  and  the  same  sanction  as  the  law  of  works. 
It  is,  therefore,  a  point  of  duty  to  believe,  because  it  is  a  point  of  obedi. 
ence,  and  hence  St.  Paul  speaks  of  "  the  obedience  of  faith."  For  as 
it  has  been  well  observed,  "  As  to  the  nature  of  faith,  it  is  a  matter  of 
obligation,  as  being  that  natural  homage  which  the  understanding  or 
will  pays  to  God  in  receiving  and  assenting  to  what  he  reveals  upon  his 
bare  word  or  authority.  It  is  a  humiliation  of  ourselves,  and  a  glorifi- 
cation of  God."  (Norris  on  Christian  Prudence.)  It  may  be  added, 
too,  that  faith,  which  implies  a  submission  to  God,  is  an  important  branch 
also  of  discipline. 

The  objection,  that  there  can  be  no  faith  where  there  is  not  sufficient 
evidence  to  command  it,  will  not  affect  this  conclusion.  For  when  once 
the  evidence  of  a  Divine  revelation  is  admitted,  our  duty  to  receive  its 
doctrines  does  not  rest  upon  the  rational  evidence  we  may  have  of  their 
truth  ;  but  upon  the  much  easier  and  plainer  evidence,  that  they  are 
among  the  things  actually  revealed.  He,  therefore,  who  admits  a  Divine 
revelation,  and  rejects  its  doctrines,  because  he  has  not  a  satisfactory 
rational  evidence  of  them,  is  more  obviously  criminal  in  his  unbelief 
than  he  who  rejects  the  revelation  itself;  for  he  openly  debates  the  case 
with  his  Maker,  a  circumstance  which  indicates,  in  the  most  striking 
manner,  a  corrupt  habit  of  mind.  It  is,  indeed,  often  pretended,  that 
such  truths  are  rejected,  not  so  much  on  this  account,  as  that  they  do 
not  appear  to  be  the  sense  of  the  revelation  itself.  But  this  cannot  be 
urged  by  those  who  openly  lay  it  down  as  a  principle,  that  a  true  reve- 
lation can  contain  nothing  which  to  them  appears  unreasonable  ;  or  that 
if  it  does,  they  are  bound  by  the  law  of  their  nature  not  to  admit  it. 
Nor  will  it  appear  to  be  any  other  than  an  unworthy  and  dishonest  pre- 
tence in  all  cases  where  such  kinds  of  criticism  are  resorted  to,  to  alter 
the  sense  of  a  text,  or  to  disprove  its  authority,  as  they  would  not  allow 
in  the  case  of  texts  supposed,  by  a  partial  construction,  to  favour  their 
own  opinion  ;  or  such  as  would  be  condemned  by  all  learned  and  sober 
persons  as  hypercritical  and  violent,  if  applied  to  any  other  writings. 
It  may  also  be  add5d,  that  should  any  of  the  great  qualities  required  in 
a  serious  and  honest  inquirer  after  truth  have  been  uncultivated  and 
unapplied,  though  a  sincere  conviction  of  the  truth  of  an  erroneous  con- 
clusion may  exist,  the  guilt  of  unbelief  would  not  be  removed  by  such 
kind  of  sincerity.     If  there  has  been  no  anxiety  to  be  right ;  no  prayer. 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  .  457 

earnest  and  devout,  offered  to  God,  to  be  kept  from  error ;  if  an  Jiuiabh 
sense  of  human  liability  to  err  has  not  been  maintained ;  if  diligence 
in  looking  out  for  proofs,  and  patience  and  perseverance  in  inquiry,  have 
not  been  exerted  ;  if  honesty  in  balancing  evidence,  and  a  firm  resolution 
to  embrace  the  truth,  whatever  prejudices  or  interests  it  may  contradict 
or  oppose,  have  not  been  felt ;  even  sincerity  in  believing  that  to  be  true, 
which  in  the  present  state  of  a  judgment  determined,  probably,  before  all 
the  means  of  information  have  been  resorted  to,  and,  perhaps,  under  the 
perverting  influences  of  a  worldly  or  carnal  state  of  mind,  may  appear 
to  be  so,  will  be  no  excuse.  We  are  under  "  a  law  of  faith,"  and  that 
law  cannot  be  supposed  to  be  so  pliable  and  nugatory,  as  they  who  con- 
tend  for  the  right  of  believing  only  what  they  please,  would  make  it. 

These  observations  will  show  the  connection  of  the  doctrine  of  the 
trinity  with  morals,  the  point  denied  by  Dr.  Priestley. 

But,  to  leave  this  objection  for  views  of  a  larger  extent ;  our  love  to 
God,  which  is  the  sum  of  every  duty,  its  sanctifying  motive,  and  conse- 
quently a  compendium  of  all  true  religion,  is  most  intimately  and  even 
essentially  connected  with  the  doctrine  in  question.  God's  love  to  us  is 
the  ground  of  our  love  to  him ;  and  .by  our  views  of  that,  it  must  be 
heightened  or  diminished.  The  love  of  God  to  man  in  the  gift  of  his 
Son  is  that  manifestation  of  it  on  which  the  Scriptures  most  emphatically 
and  frequently  dwell,  and  on  which  they  establish  our  duty  of  loving 
God  and  one  another.  Now  the  estimate  which  we  are  to  take  of  the 
love  of  God,  must  be  the  value  of  his  gifts  to  us.  His  greatest  gift  is 
the  gift  of  his  Son,  through  whom  alone  we  have  the  promise  of  ever- 
lasting life ;  but  our  estimate  of  the  love  which  gives  must  be  widely 
different,  according  as  we  regard  the  gift  bestowed, — as  a  creature,  or 
as  a  Divine  person, — as  merely  a  Son  of  man,  or  as  the  Son  of  God. 
If  the  former  only,  it  is  difficult  to  conceive  in  what  this  love,  constantly 
represented  as  "unspeakable"  and  astonishing,  could  consist.  Indeed, 
if  we  suppose  Christ  to  be  a  man  only,  on  the  Socinian  scheme,  or  as 
an  exalted  creature,  according  to  the  Arians,  God  might  be  rather  said 
to  have  "  so  loved  his  Son"  than  us,  as  to  send  him  into  the  world,  on  a 
service  so  honourable,  and  which  was  to  be  followed  by  so  high  and  vast 
a  reward,  that  he,  a  creature,  should  be  advanced  to  universal  dominion 
and  receive  universal  homage  as  the  price  only  of  temporary  sufferings, 
which,  upon  either  the  Socinian  or  Arian  scheme,  were  not  greater  than 
those  which  many  of  his  disciples  endured  after  him,  and,  in  many 
instances,  not  so  great.  (2) 

(2,  "  Equidem  rem  attentius  perpendenti  liquebit,  ex  hypothesi  sive  Sociniana, 
sive  Ariana,  Deum  in  hoc  negotio  amorem  et  dilectionem  euam  potius  in  ilium 
ipsum  filium,  quam  erga  nos  homines  ostendisse.  Quid  enim?  Is  qui  Christus 
dicitur,  ex  mera  Dei  tv&oKia  et  beneplacito  in  earn  gratiam  electus  est,  ut  post 
brevem  hie  in  terris  Deo  prsstitam  obedientiam,  ex  puro  puto  homine  juxta  Soci. 


458  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

For  the  same  reason,  the  doctrine  which  denies  our  Lord's  Divinity 
diminishes  the  love  of  Christ  himself,  takes  away  its  generosity  and  de- 
votedness,  presents  it  under  views  infinitely  below  those  contained  in  the 
New  Testament,  and  weakens  the  motives  which  are  drawn  from  it  to 
excite  our  gratitude  and  obedience.  "  If  Christ  was  in  the  form  of  God, 
equal  with  God,  and  very  God,  it  was  then  an  act  of  infinite  love  and 
condescension  in  him  to  become  man ;  but  if  he  was  no  more  than  a 
creature,  it  was  no  surprising  condescension  to  embark  in  a  work  so 
glorious ;  such  as  being  the  Saviour  of  mankind,  and  such  as  would 
advance  him  to  be  Lord  and  Judge  of  the  world,  to  be  admired,  reve- 
renced, and  adored,  both  by  men  and  angels."  (Waterland's  Import' 
ance.)  To  this  it  may  be  added,  that  the  idea  of  disinterested  generous 
love,  such  as  the  love  of  Christ  is  represented  to  be  by  the  evangelists 
and  the  apostles,  cannot  be  supported  upon  any  supposition  but  that  he 
was  properly  a  Divine  person.  As  a  man  and  as  a  creature  only,  how- 
ever exalted,  he  would  have  profited  by  his  exaltation ;  but,  considered 
as  Divine,  Christ  gained  nothing.  God  is  full  and  perfect — he  is  exalted 
"  above  blessing  and  praise :"  and,  therefore,  our  Lord,  in  that  Divine 
nature,  prays  that  he  might  be  glorified  with  the  Father,  with  the  glory 
he  had  before.  Not  a  glory  which  was  new  to  him ;  not  a  glory 
heightened  in  its  degree ;  but  the  glory  which  he  had  with  the  Father 
"  before  the  world  was."  In  a  manner  mysterious  to  us,  even  as  to  his 
Divine  nature,  "he  emptied  himself — he  humbled  himself;"  but  in  that 
nature  he  returned  to  a  glory  which  he  had  before  the  world  was.  The 
whole,  therefore,  was  in  him  generous  disinterested  love,  ineffable  and 
affecting  condescension.  The  heresy  of  the  Socinians  and  Arians 
totally  annihilates,  therefore,  the  true  character  of  the  love  of  Christ, 
"  so  that,"  as  Dr.  Sherlock  well  observes,  "  to  deny  the  Divinity  of 
Christ,  alters  the  very  foundations  of  Christianity,  and  destroys  all  the 
powerful  arguments  of  the  love,  humility,  and  condescension  of  our  Lord, 
which  are  the  peculiar  motives  of  the  Gospel."  (Defence  of  Stilling, 
fleet.) 

But  it  is  not  only  in  this  view  that  the  denial  of  the  Divinity  of  our 
Lord  would  alter  the  foundation  of  the  Christian  scheme,  but  in  others 
equally  essential :  For, 

1.  The  doctrine  of  satisfaction  or  atonement  depends  upon  his  Divi- 
nity ;  and  it  is,  therefore,  consistently  denied  by  those  who  reject  the 
former.  So  important,  however,  is  the  decision  of  this  case,  that  the 
very  terms  of  our  salvation,  and  the  ground  of  our  hope,  are  affected 
by  it. 

nistas,  sive  ex  mera  et  mutabili  creatura,  ut  Ario.manitce  dicunt,  Deus  ipse  fieret, 
ac  divinos  honores,  non  modo  a  nobis  hominibus  sed  etiam  ab  ipsis  angelis  atque 
archangelis  sibi  tribuendos  assequeretur,  adeoque  in  alias  creaturas  omnes  domi- 
nium atque  imperium  obtineret."  (Bull.  Jud.  Eccl.  Cathol.) 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  459 

The  Arians,  now  however  nearly  extinct,  admitted  the  doctrine  of 
atonement,  though  inconsistently.  "  No  creature  could  merit  from  God, 
or  do  works  of  supererogation.  If  it  be  said  that  God  might  accept  it 
as  he  pleased,  it  may  be  said  upon  the  same  principle,  that  he  might 
accept  the  blood  of  bulls  and  of  goats.  Yet  the  apostle  tells  that  it  is 
not  possible  that  the  blood  of  bulls  and  of  goats  should  take  away  sin ; 
which  words  resolve  the  satisfaction,  not  merely  into  God's  free  accept- 
ance, but  into  the  intrinsic  value  of  the  sacrifice."  (Waterland's  Import- 
ance.) Hence  the  Scriptures  so  constantly  connect  the  atonement  with 
the  character, — the  very  Divinity  of  the  person  suffering.  It  was  Jeho. 
vah  who  was  pierced,  Zech.  xii,  11  ;  God  who  purchased  the  Church 
with  his  own  blood,  Acts  xx,  28.  It  was  o  AsoVof^  the  high  Lord,  that 
bought  us,  2  Pet.  ii,  1.  It  was  the  Lord  of  glory  that  was  crucified, 
1  Cor.  ii,  8. 

It  is  no  small  presumption  of  the  impossibility  of  holding,  with  any 
support  from  the  common  sense  of  mankind,  the  doctrine  of  atonement 
with  that  of  an  inferior  Divinity,  that  these  opinions  have  so  uniformly 
slided  down  into  a  total  denial  of  it,  and  by  almost  all  persons,  except 
those  who  have  retained  the  pure  faith  of  the  Gospel,  Christ  is  regarded 
as  a  man  only ;  and  no  atonement,  in  any  sense,  is  allowed  to  have 
been  made  by  his  death.  The  terms,  then,  of  human  salvation  are 
entirely  different  on  one  scheme  and  on  the  other ;  and  with  respect  to 
their  advocates,  one  is  "  under  law,"  the  other  "  under  grace ;"  one 
takes  the  cause  of  his  own  salvation  into  his  own  hands  to  manage  it  as 
he  is  able,  and  to  plead  with  God,  either  that  he  is  just,  or  that  he  may 
be  justified  by  his  own  penitence  and  acts  of  obedient  virtue  ;  the  other 
pleads  the  meritorious  death  and  intercession  of  his  Saviour,  in  his  name 
and  mediation  makes  his  requests  known  unto  God,  and  asks  a  justifi- 
cation by  faith,  and  a  renewal  of  heart  by  the  Holy  Ghost.  One  stands 
with  all  his  offences  before  his  Maker,  and  in  his  own  person,  without  a 
mediator  and  advocate ;  the  other  avails  himself  of  both.  A  question 
which  involves  such  consequences  is  surely  not  a  speculative  one ;  but 
deeply  practical  and  vital,  and  must  be  found  to  be  so  in  its  final  issue. 

2.  The  manner  in  which  the  evil  of  sin  is  estimated  must  be  very  dif- 
ferent, on  these  views  of  the  Divine  nature  respectively ;  and  this  is  a 
consequence  of  a  directly  practical  nature.  Whatever  lowers  in  men  a 
sense  of  what  an  apostle  calls  "  the  exceeding  sinfulness  of  sin,"  weakens 
the  hatred  and  horror  of  it  among  men,  and  by  consequence  encourages 
it.  In  the  Socinian  view,  transgressions  of  the  Divine  law  are  all 
regarded  as  venial,  or,  at  most,  to  be  subjected  to  slight  and  temporary 
punishment.  In  the  orthodox  doctrine,  sin  is  an  evil  so  great  in  itself, 
so  hateful  to  God,  so  injurious  in  its  effects,  so  necessary  to  be  restrained 
by  punishment,  that  it  dooms  the  offender  to  eternal  exclusion  from  God, 
and  to  positive  endless  punishment,  and  could  only  be  forgiven  through 


460  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

a  sacrifice  of  atonement,  so  extraordinary  as  that  of  the  eath  of  the 
Divine  Son  of  God.  By  these  means,  forgiveness  only  could  be  pro- 
mised ;  and  the  neglect  of  them,  in  order  to  pardon  and  sanctification 
too,  aggravates  the  punishment,  and  makes  the  final  visitation  of  justice 
the  more  terrible. 

3.  It  totally  changes  the  character  of  Christian  experience.  Those 
strong  and  painful  emotions  of  sorrow  and  alarm,  which  characterize 
the  descriptions  and  example  of  repentance  in  the  Scriptures,  are 
totally  incongruous  and  uncalled  for,  upon  the  theory  which  denies 
man's  lost  condition,  and  his  salvation  by  a  process  of  redemption. 
Faith,  too,  undergoes  an  essential  change.  It  is  no  longer  faith  in 
Christ.  His  doctrine  or  his  mission  are  its  objects  ;  but  not,  as  the  New 
Testament  states  it,  his  person  as  a  surety,  a  sacrifice,  a  mediator ;  and 
much  less  than  any  thing  else  can  it  be  called,  in  the  language  of  Scrip- 
ture, "faith  in  his  blood,"  a  phrase  utterly  incapable  of  an  interpre- 
tation by  Socinians.  Nor  is  it  possible  to  offer  up  prayer  to  God  in 
the  name  of  Christ,  though  expressly  enjoined  upon  his  disciples,  in  any 
sense  which  would  not  justify  all  the  idolatry  of  the  Roman  Church,  in 
availing  themselves  of  the  names,  the  interests,  and  the  merits  of  saints. 
In  a  Socinian,  this  would  even  be  more  inconsistent,  because  he  denies 
the  doctrine  of  mediation  in  any  sense  which  would  intimate,  that  a 
benevolent  God  may  not  be  immediately  approached  by  his  guilty  but 
penitent  creatures.  Love  to  Christ,  which  is  made  so  eminent  a  grace 
in  internal  and  experimental  Christianity,  changes  also  its  character. 
It  cannot  be  supreme,  for  that  would  be  to  break  the  first  and  great 
command,  "  Thou  shalt  love  the  Lord  thy  God  with  all  thy  heart,"  if 
Christ  himself  be  not  that  Lord  our  God.  It  must  be  love  of  the  same 
kind  we  feel  to  creatures  from  whom  we  have  received  any  benefit,  and 
a  passion,  therefore,  to  be  guarded  and  restrained,  lest  it  should  become 
excessive  and  wean  our  hearts  and  thoughts  from  God.  But  surely  it 
is  not  under  such  views  that  love  to  Christ  is  represented  in  the  Scrip- 
tures ;  and  against  its  excess,  as  against  creaturely  attachments,  we 
have  certainly  no  admonition,  no  cautions.  The  love  of  Christ  to  us 
also  as  a  motive  to  generous  service,  sufferings,  and  death,  for  the  sake 
of  others,  loses  all  its  force  and  application.  "  The  love  of  Christ  con- 
straineth  us ;  for  we  thus  judge,  that  if  one  died  for  all,  then  were  all 
dead."  That  love  of  Christ  which  constrained  the  apostle  was  a  love 
which  led  him  to  die  for  men.  St.  John  makes  the  duty  of  dying  for 
our  brother  obligatory  upon  all  Christians,  if  called  to  it,  and  grounds  it 
upon  the  same  fact.  "  He  laid  down  his  life  for  us,  and  we  ought  to 
lay  down  our  lives  tor  our  brethren."  The  meaning,  doubtless,  is  in 
order  to  save  them ;  and  though  men  are  saved  by  Christ's  dying  for 
them,  in  a  very  different  sense  from  that  in  which  they  can  be  saved  by 
our  dying  in  the  cause  of  instructing,  and  thus  instrumental ly  saving 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  401 

each  other ;  yet  the  argument  is  founded  upon  the  necessary  connection 
which  there  i3  between  the  death  of  Christ  and  the  salvation  of  men. 
But,  on  the  Socinian  scheme,  Christ  did,  in  no  sense,  die  for  men,  no, 
not  in  their  general  mode  of  interpreting  such  passages,  "for  the  benefit 
of  men  ;"  for  what  benefit,  independent  of  propitiation,  which  Socinians 
deny,  do  men  derive  from  the  voluntary  death  of  Christ,  considered  as  a 
mere  human  instructer  1  If  it  be  said  his  death  was  an  example,  it  was 
not  specially  and  peculiarly  so ;  for  both  prophets  and  apostles  have 
died  with  resignation  and  fortitude.  If  it  be  alleged,  that  it  was  to  con- 
firm  his  doctrine,  the  answer  is,  that,  in  this  view,  it  was  nugatory, 
because  it  had  been  confirmed  by  undoubted  miracles.  If  that  he  might 
confirm  his  mission  by  his  resurrection,  this  might  as  well  have  followed 
from  a  natural  as  from  a  violent  death ;  and  beside  the  benefit  which 
men  derive  from  him,  is,  by  this  notion,  placed  in  his  resurrection,  and 
not  in  his  death,  which  is  always  exhibited  in  the  New  Testament  with 
marked  and  striking  emphasis.  The  motive  to  generous  sacrifices  of 
ease  and  life,  in  behalf  of  men,  drawn  from  the  death  of  Christ,  have, 
therefore,  no  existence  whenever  his  Godhead  and  sacrifice  are  denied. 

4.  The  general  and  habitual  exercises  of  the  affections  of  trust, 
hope,  joy,  &c,  toward  Christ,  are  all  interfered  with  by  the  Socinian 
doctrine.  This  has,  in  part,  been  stated  ;  but  "  if  the  Redeemer  were 
not  omnipresent  and  omniscient,  could  we  be  certain  that  he  always 
hears  our  prayers,  and  knows  the  source  and  remedy  of  all  our  miseries  ? 
If  he  were  not  all-merciful,  could  we  be  certain  he  must  always  be  will- 
ing to  pardon  and  relieve  us  ?  If  he  were  not  all-powerful,  could  we  be 
sure  that  he  must  always  be  able  to  support  and  strengthen,  to  enlighten 
and  direct  us  ]  Of  any  being  less  than  God,  we  might  suspect  that  his 
purposes  might  waver,  his  promises  fail,  his  existence  itself,  perhaps, 
terminate  ;  for  of  every  created  being,  the  existence  must  be  dependent 
and  terminable."    {Dr.  Graves's  Scriptural  Proof s  of  the  Trinity.) 

The  language  too,  I  say  not  of  the  Church  of  Christ  in  all  ages,  for 
that  has  been  formed  upon  her  faith,  but  of  the  Scriptures  themselves, 
must  be  altered  and  brought  down  to  these  inferior  views.  No  dying 
saint  can  say,  "  Lord  Jesus,  receive  my  spirit,"  if  he  be  a  man  like  our- 
selves ;  and  the  redeemed  neither  in  heaven  nor  in  earth,  can  dare  to 
associate  a  creature  so  with  God  in  Divine  honours  and  solemn  worship, 
as  to  unite  in  the  chorus,  "  Blessing,  and  honour,  and  glory,  and  power, 
be  unto  him  that  sitteth  upon  the  throne,  and  unto  the  Lamb,  for  ever !" 

The  same  essential  changes  must  be  made  in  the  doctrine  of  Divine 
agency,  in  the  heart  of  man,  and  in  the  Church,  and  the  same  confusion 
introduced  into  the  language  of  Scripture.  "Our  salvation  by  Christ 
does  not  consist  only  in  the  expiation  of  our  sins,  &c,  but  in  communication 
of  Divine  grace  and  power,  to  renew  and  sanctify  us  :  and  this  is  every 
where  in  Scripture  attributed  to  the  Holy  Spirit,  as  his  peculiar  office  in 


462  THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES.  [PARI 

the  economy  of  man's  salvation  :  it  must  therefore  make  a.  fundamental 
change  in  the  doctrine  of  Divine  grace  and  assistance,   to  deny  the 
Divinity  of  the  Holy  Spirit.     For  can  a  creature  be  the  universal  spring 
and  fountain  of  Divine  grace  and  life  ?    Can  a.  finite  creature  be  a  kind 
of  universal  soul  to  the  whole  Christian  Church,  and  to  every  sincere 
member  of  it  1    Can  a  creature  make  such  close  application  to  our  minds, 
know  our  thoughts,  set  bounds  to  our  passions,  inspire  us  with  new  affec- 
tions and  desires,  and  be  more  intimate  to  us  than  we  are  to  ourselves  ? 
If  a  creature  be  the  only  instrument  and  principle  of  grace,  we  shall 
soon  be  tempted  either  to  deny  the  grace  of  God,  or  to  make  it  only  an 
external  thing,  and   entertain  very  mean  conceits  of  it.       All  those 
miraculous  gifts  which  were  bestowed  upon  the  apostles  and  primitive 
Christians,  for  the  edification  of  the  Church  ;  all  the  graces  of  the  Chris- 
tian life,  are  the  fruits  of  the  Spirit.     The  Divine  Spirit  is  the  principle 
of  immortality  in  us,  which  first  gave  life  to  our  souls,  and  will,  at  the 
last  day,  raise  our  dead  bodies  out  of  the  dust ;  works  which  sufficiently 
proclaim  him  to  be  God,  and  which  we  cannot  heartily  believe,  in  the 
Gospel  notion,  if  he  be  not."   (Sherlock's   Vindication.)     All  this  has 
been  felt  so  forcibly  by  the  deniers  of  the  Divinity  of  the  Holy  Spirit, 
that  they  have  escaped  only  by  taking  another  leap  down  the  gulf  of 
error ;  and,  at  present,  the  Socinians  deny  that  Ihere  is  any  Holy  Ghost, 
and  resolve  the  whole  into  a  figure  of  speech. 

But  the  importance  of  the  doctrine  of  the  holy  trinity  may  be  finally 
argued  from  the  manner  in  which  the  denial  of  it  would  affect  the  credit 
of  the  Holy  Scriptures  themselves  ;  for  if  this  doctrine  be  not  contained 
in  them,  their  tendency  to  mislead  is  obvious.  Their  constant  language 
is  so  adapted  to  deceive,  and  even  to  compel  the  belief  of  falsehood,  even 
in  fundamental  points,  and  to  lead  to  the  practice  of  idolatry  itself,  that 
they  would  lose  all  claim  to  be  regarded  as  a  revelation  from  the  God 
of  truth,  and  ought  rather  to  be  shunned  than  to  be  studied.  A  great 
part  of  the  Scriptures  is  directed  against  idolatry,  which  is  declared  to  be 
"  that  abominable  thing  which  the  Lord  hateth ;"  and  in  pursuance  of  this 
design,  the  doctrine  that  there  is  but  one  God  is  laid  down  in  tht 
most  explicit  terms,  and  constantly  confirmed  by  appeals  to  his  works. 
The  very  first  command  in  the  decalogue  is,  "  Thou  shalt  have  no  other 
Gods  before  me  ;"  and  the  sum  of  the  law,  as  to  our  duty  to  God,  is  that 
we  love  him  "  with  all  our  heart,  and  mind,  and  soul,  and  strength." 
If  the  doctrine  of  a  trinity  of  Divine  persons  in  the  unity  of  the  Godhead 
be  consistent  with  all  this,  then  the  style  and  manner  of  the  Scriptures 
are  in  perfect  accordance  with  the  moral  ends  they  propose,  and  the 
truths  in  which  they  would  instruct  mankind ;  but  if  the  Son  and  the 
Holy  Spirit  are  creatures,  then  is  the  language  of  the  sacred  books 
most  deceptive  and  dangerous.  For  how  is  it  to  be  accounted  for,  in 
that  case,  that,  in  the  Old  Testament,  God  should  be  spoken  of  in  plural 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  463 

terms,  and  that  this  plurality  should  be  restricted  to  three?  How  is  it 
that  the  very  name  Jehovah  should  be  given  to  each  of  them,  and  that  re- 
peatedly and  on  the  most  solemn  occasions  ?  How  is  it  that  the  promised, 
incarnate  Messiah  should  be  invested,  in  the  prophecies  of  his  advent, 
with  the  loftiest  attributes  of  God,  and  that  works  infinitely  superhuman, 
and  Divine  honours  should  be  predicted  of  him  1  and  that  acts  and  cha- 
racters of  unequivocal  Divinity,  according  to  the  common  apprehension 
of  mankind,  should  be  ascribed  to  the  Spirit  also  ?  How  is  it,  that,  in  the 
New  Testament,  the  name  of  God  should  be  given  to  both,  and  that 
without  any  intimation  that  it  is  to  be  taken  in  an  inferior  sense  ?  That 
the  creation  and  conservation  of  all  things  should  be  ascribed  to  Christ ; 
that  he  should  be  worshipped  by  angels  and  by  men ;  that  he  should  be 
represented  as  seated  on  the  throne  of  the  universe,  to  receive  the  adora- 
tions of  all  creatures  ;  and  that  in  the  very  form  of  initiation  by  baptism 
into  his  Church,  itself  a  public  and  solemn  profession  of  faith,  the  bap- 
tism is  enjoined  to  be  performed  in  the  one  name  of  the  Father,  Son,  and 
Holy  Ghost  ?  One  God  and  two  creatures !  As  though  the  very  door 
of  entrance  into  the  Christian  Church  should  have  been  purposely  made 
the  gate  of  the  worst  and  most  corrupting  error  ever  introduced  among 
mankind; — trust  and  worship  in  creatures  as  God ;  the  error  which  has 
spread  darkness  and  moral  desolation  over  the  whole  pagan  world ! 

And  here  it  cannot  be  said  that  the  question  is  begged,  that  more  is 
taken  for  granted  than  the  Socinians  will  allow  ;  for  this  argument  does 
not  rest  at  all  upon  what  the  deniers  of  our  Lord's  Divinity  understand 
by  all  these  terms,  and  what  interpretations  may  be  put  upon  them. 
This  is  the  popular  view  of  the  subject  which  has  just  been  drawn  from 
the  Scriptures  ;  and  they  themselves  acknowledge  it  by  resorting  to  the 
arts  and  labours  of  far-fetched  criticism,  in  order  to  attach  to  these  pas- 
sages  of  Scripture  a  sense  different  to  the  obvious  and  popular  one.  But 
it  is  not  merely  the  popular  sense  of  Scripture.  It  is  so  taken,  and  has 
been  taken  in  all  ages,  by  the  wisest  men  and  most  competent  critics,  to 
be  the  only  consistent  sense  of  the  sacred  volume  ;  a  circumstance  which 
still  more  strongly  proves,  that  if  the  Scriptures  were  written  on  Soci- 
nian  principles,  they  are  more  unfortunately  expressed  than  any  book  in 
the  world  ;  and  they  can,  on  no  account,  be  considered  a  Divine  revela- 
tion, not  because  of  their  obscurity,  for  they  are  not  obscure,  but  because 
terms  are  used  in  them  which  convey  a  sense  different  from  what  the 
writers  intended,  if  indeed  they  were  Socinians.  But  their  evidences 
prove  them  to  be  a  revelation  of  truth  from  the  God  of  truth,  and  they 
cannot  therefore  be  so  written  as  to  lead  men,  who  use  only  ordinary 
care,  into  fundamental  error ;  and  the  conclusion  therefore  must  inevita- 
bly be,  that  if  we  must  admit  either  on  the  one  hand  what  is  so  derogatory 
to  the  Scriptures,  and  so  subversive  of  all  confidence  in  them,  or,  on  the 
other,  that  the  doctrine  of  the  Divinity  of  the  Son  and  Holy  Spirit 


464  THEOLOGICAL   INSTITUTES.  [PART 

is  there  explicitly  taught,  there  is  no  medium  between  absolute  infidelity 
and  the  acknowledgment  of  our  Lord's  Divinity ;  and  indeed,  to  adopt 
the  representation  of  a  great  divine,  it  is  rather  to  rave  than  to  reason, 
to  suppose,  that  he  whom  the  Scriptures  teach  us  to  regard  as  the  Sa- 
viour of  our  souls,  and  as  our  wisdom,  righteousness,  sanctification,  and 
redemption ;  he  who  hears  our  prayers,  and  is  always  present  with  his 
Church  throughout  the  world,  who  sits  at  the  right  hand  of  God,  in  the 
glory  of  his  Father,  and  who  shall  come  at  the  last  day  in  glory  and 
majesty,  accompanied  with  ministering  angels,  to  judge  all  mankind 
and  to  bring  to  light  the  very  secrets  of  their  hearts,  should  be  a  mere 
man  or  a  created  being  of  any  kind.  (3) 

I  close  this  view  of  the  importance  of  the  doctrine  of  the  trinity  by 
the  observations  of  Dr.  Waterland  : — 

"  While  we  consider  the  doctrine  of  the  trinity  as  interwoven  with 
the  very  frame  and  texture  of  the  Christian  religion,  it  appears  to  me 
natural  to  conceive  that  the  whole  scheme  and  economy  of  man's 
redemption  was  laid  with  a  principal  view  to  it,  in  order  to  bring  man- 
kind  gradually  into  an  acquaintance  with  the  three  Divine  persons,  one 
God  blessed  for  ever.  I  would  speak  with  all  due  modesty,  caution,  and 
reverence,  as  becomes  us  always  in  what  concerns  the  unsearchable 
councils  of  Heaven  :  but  I  say,  there  appears  to  me  none  so  natural,  or 
so  probable  an  account  of  the  Divine  dispensations,  from  first  to  last, 
as  what  I  have  just  mentioned,  namely,  that  such  a  redemption  was 
provided,  such  an  expiation  for  sins  required,  such  a  method  of  sancti- 
fication appointed,  and  then  revealed,  that  so  men  might  know  that 
there  are  three  Divine  persons,  might  be  apprized  how  infinitely  the 
world  is  indebted  to  them,  and  might  accordingly  be  both  instructed  and 
iuclined  to  love,  honour,  and  adore  them  here,  because  that  must  be  a 
Considerable  part  of  their  employment  and  happiness  hereafter."  (Impor. 
tance  of  the  Doctrine  of  the  Trinity.) 

In  order  to  bring  this  great  controversy  in  such  an  order  before  the 
reader,  as  may  assist  him  to  enter  with  advantage  into  it,  I  shall  first 
carefully  collect  the  leading  testimonies  of  Scripture  on  the  doctrine  of 

(3)  OiKovtapia,  quae  ipsi  tribuitur,  $to\oyiav  necessario  supponit,  ipsumque  omnino 
statuit.  Quid  enim  ?  Messiam  sive  Christum  praedicant  sacrae  nostras  literae  et 
credere  nos  profitemur  omnes,  qui  sit  animarum  sospitator,  qui  nobis  sit  sapientia, 
jmtitia,  sanctificatio  et  redemptio — qui  preces  suorum,  ubivis  sacrosanc  turn  ejus 
nomen  invocantium,  illico  exaudiat — qui  ecclesia?  suae  per  universum  terrarum 
orbem  disseminatae,  semper  proesto  sit — qui  Deo  Patri,  owdpovos,  et  in  eadem  sede 
collocatus  sit — qui  denique,  in  exitu  mundi,  immensa  gloria  et  majestate  refulgens, 
angelis  ministris  stipatus,  veniet  orbem  judicaturus,  non  modo  facta  omnia,  sed 
et  cordis  secreta  omnium  quotquot  fuere  hominum  in  lucem  proditurus,  &c 
Hreccine  omnia  in  purum  hominem,  aut  creaturam  aliquam  competere  ?  Fidenter 
dico,  qui  ita  sentiat,  non  modo  contra  Fidem,  sed  et  rationem  ipsam  insanire. 
{Bull.  Judic.  Eccl.  Cath.) 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  465 

the  trinity  and  the  Divinity  of  the  Son  and  Holy  Spirit, — adduce  the  opi- 
nions of  the  Jewish  and  Christian  Churches, — answer  objections, — explain 
the  chief  modern  heresies  on  this  subject,  and  give  their  Scriptural  con- 
futation. An  observation  or  two  on  the  difficulties  in  which  the  doctrine 
of  a  trinity  of  persons  in  the  unity  of  one  undivided  Godhead  is  said  to 
involve  us,  may  properly  close  this  chapter. 

Mere  difficulty  in  conceiving  of  what  is  wholly  proper  and  peculiar 
to  God,  forms  no  objection  to  a  doctrine.  It  is  more  rationally  to  be 
considered  as  a  presumption  of  its  truth,  since  in  the  nature  of  God* 
there  must  be  mysteries  far  above  the  reach  of  the  human  mind.  Air 
his  natural  attributes,  though  of  some  of  them  we  have  images  in  our- 
selves, are  utterly  incomprehensible ;  and  the  manner  of  his  existence 
cannot  be  less  so.  All  attempts,  however,  to  show  that  this  great 
doctrine  implies  a  contradiction,  have  failed.  A  contradiction  is  only 
where  two  contraries  are  predicated  of  the  same  thing,  and  in  the  same 
respect.  Let  this  be  kept  in  view,  and  the  sophisms  resorted  to  on  this 
point  by  the  adversaries  of  the  faith,  will  be  easily  detected.  They 
urge,  that  the  same  thing  cannot  be  three  and  one,  that  is,  if  the  propo- 
sition has  any  meaning  at  all,  not  in  the  same  respect ;  the  three  persons 
are  not  one  person,  and  the  one  God  is  not  three  Gods.  But  it  is  no  con- 
tradiction to  say,  that  in  different  respects  the  three  may  be  one  ;  that  is, 
that  in  respect  of  persons,  they  shall  be  three,  and  in  respect  of  God. 
head,  essence,  or  nature,  they  shall  be  one.  The  manner  of  the  thing 
is  a  perfectly  distinct  question,  and  its  incomprehensibility  proves 
nothing  but  that  we  are  finite  creatures,  and  not  God.  As  for  difficul- 
ties, we  shall  certainly  not  be  relieved  by  running  either  to  the  Arian  or 
the  Socinian  hypothesis.  The  one  ascribes  the  first  formation  and  the 
perpetual  government  of  the  universe,  not  to  the  Deity,  but  to  the  wis- 
dom and  power  of  a  creature  ;  for,  however  exalted  the  Arian  inferior 
Deity  may  be,  he  is  a  creature  still.  The  other  makes  a  mere  man 
the  creator  of  all  things.  For  whatever  is  meant  by  "  the  Word  in  St. 
John's  Gospel,  it  is  the  same  Word  of  which  the  evangelist  says,  that 
all  things  were  made  by  it,  and  that  itself  was  made  flesh.  If  this 
Word  be  the  Divine  attribute  wisdom,  then  that  attribute  in  the  degree 
which  was  equal  to  the  formation  of  the  universe,  in  this  view  of  the 
Scripture  doctrine,  was  conveyed  entire  into  the  mind  of  a  mere  man, 
the  son  of  a  Jewish  carpenter !  A  much  greater  difficulty,  in  my  appre- 
hension, than  any  that  is  to  be  found  in  the  catholic  faith."  (Horsley's 
Letters.) 

Vol.  I.  30 


466  THEOIiOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  (FART 

CHAPTER  IX. 

Trinity. — Scripture  Testimony. 

In  adducing  the  doctrine  of  a  trinity  of  Divine  persons  in  the  unity 
of  the  Godhead  from  the  sacred  volume,  by  exhibiting  some  of  its 
numerous  and  decisive  testimonies  as  to  this  being  the  mode  in  which 
the  Divine  nature  subsists ;  the  explicit  manner  in  which  it  is  there  laid 
down,  that  there  is  but  one  God,  must  again  be  noticed. 

This  is  the  foundation  and  the  key  stone  of  the  whole  fabric  of  Scrip- 
tural theology  ;  and  every  argument  in  favour  of  the  trinity  flows 
from  this  principle  of  the  absolute  unity  of  God,  a  principle  which  the 
heresies  at  which  we  have  glanced  fancy  to  be  inconsistent  with  the 
orthodox  doctrine. 

The  solemn  and  unequivocal  manner  in  which  the  unity  of  God  is 
stated  as  a  doctrine,  and  is  placed  as  the  foundation  of  all  true  religion, 
whether  devotional  or  practical,  need  not  again  be  repeated  ;  and  it  is 
here  sufficient  to  refer  to  the  chapter  on  the  unity  of  God. 

Of  this  one  God,  the  high  and  peculiar,  and,  as  it  has  been  truly 
called,  the  appropriate  name,  is  Jehovah  ;  which,  like  all  the  Hebrew 
names  of  God,  is  not  an  insignificant  and  accidental  term,  but  a  name 
of  revelation,  a  name  adopted  by  God  himself  for  the  purpose  of  making 
known  the  mystery  of  his  nature.  To  what  has  been  already  said  on 
this  appellation,  I  may  add  that  the  most  eminent  critics  derive  it  from 
TYiT\,fuit  existit ;  which  in  Kal  signifies  to  be,  and  in  Hiphel  to  cause  to 
be.  Buxtorf,  in  his  definition,  includes  both  these  ideas,  and  makes  it 
signify  a  being  existing  from  himself  from  everlasting  to  everlasting,  and 
communicating  existence  to  others,  and  adds,  that  it  signifies  the  Being 
who  is,  and  was,  and  is  to  come.  Its  derivation  has  been  variously 
stated  by  critics,  and  some  fanciful  notions  have  been  formed  of  the 
import  of  its  several  letters ;  but  in  this  idea  of  absolute  existence  all 
agree.  "  It  is  acknowledged  by  all,"  says  Bishop  Pearson,  "  that  mrv  is 
from  nin  or  rrn,  and  God's  own  interpretation  proves  no  less,  Exodus 
iii,  14.  Some  contend  that  futurition  is  essential  to  the  name,  yet  all 
agree  the  root  signifieth  nothing  but  essence  or  existence,  that  is,  to  sivcci 
or  utfapysiv."  (Exposition  of  the  Creed.)  No  appellation  of  the  Divine 
Being  could  therefore  be  more  distinctive,  than  that  which  imports 
independent  and  eternal  being;  and  for  this  reason  probably  it  was, 
that  the  Jews,  up  to  a  very  high  antiquity,  had  a  singular  reverence  for 
it ;  carried,  it  is  true,  to  a  superstitious  scrupulosity ;  but  thereby 
showing  that  it  was  the  name  which  unveiled,  to  the  thoughts  of  those 
to  whom  it  was  first  given,  the  awful  and  overwhelming  glories  of  a 


SECONb.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  467 

self- existent  Being, — the  very  unfathomable  depths  of  his  eternal  God- 
head. (4) 

In  examining  what  the  Scriptures  teach  of  this  self-existent  and  eter- 
nal Being,  our  attention  is  first  arrested  by  the  important  fact,  that  this 
one  Jehovah  is  spoken  of  under  plural  appellations,  and  that  not  once  or 
twice,  but  in  a  countless  number  of  instances.  So  that  the  Hebrew  names 
of  God,  acknowledged  by  all  to  be  expressive  and  declaratory  of  some 
peculiarity  or  excellence  of  his  nature,  are  found  in  several  cases  in  the 
plural  as  well  as  in  the  singular  form,  and  one  of  them,  Aleim,  gene- 
rally so ;  and  notwithstanding  it  was  so  fundamental  and  distinguishing 
an  article  of  the  Jewish  faith,  in  opposition  to  the  polytheism  of  almost 
all  other  nations,  there  was  but  one  living  and  true  God.  1  give  a  few 
instances.  Jehovah,  if  it  has  not  a  plural  form,  has  more  than  one 
personal  application.  "  Then  the  Lord  rained  upon  Sodom  and  upon 
Gomorrah  brimstone  and  fire  from  the  Lord  out  of  heaven."  We 
have  here  the  visible  Jehovah  who  had  talked  with  Abraham,  raining 
the  storm  of  vengeance  from  another  Jehovah,  out  of  heaven,  and  who 
was  therefore  invisible.  Thus  we  have  two  Jehovahs  expressly  men- 
tioned, « the  Lord  rained  from  the  Lord,"  and  yet  we  have  it  most 
solemnly  asserted  in  Deut.  vi,  4,  "  Hear,  O  Israel,  Jehovah  our  God  is 
one  Jehovah." 

The  very  first  name  in  the  Scriptures  under  which  the  Divine  Being 
is  introduced  to  us  as  the  Creator  of  heaven  and  earth,  is  a  plural  one, 
CTnSx.  Aleim  ;  and  to  connect  in  the  same  singular  manner  as  in  the 
foregoing  instance,  plurality  with  unity,  it  is  the  nominative  case  to  a 
verb  singular.  "  In  the  beginning,  Gods  created  the  heavens  and  the 
earth."  Of  this  form  innumerable  instances  occur  in  the  Old  Testa- 
ment. That  the  word  is  plural,  is  made  certain  by  its  being  often 
joined  with  adjectives,  pronouns,  and  verbs  plural ;  and  yet  when  it  can 
mean  nothing  else  than  the  true  God,  it  is  generally  joined  in  its  plural 
form  with  verbs  singular.  To  render  this  still  more  striking,  the  Aleim 
are  said  to  be  Jehovah,  and  Jehovah  the  Aleim :  thus  in  Psalm  c,  3, 
"Know  ye,  that  Jehovah,  he,  the  Aleim,  he  hath  made  us,  and  not 
we  ourselves."  And  in  the  passage  before  given,  "  Jehovah  our  Aleim, 
(Gods,)  is  one  Jehovah."  Sk>  Al,  the  mighty  one,  another  name  of 
God,  lias  its  plural  a,l7tfi  Alim,  the  mighty  ones.  The  former  is  ren- 
dered by  Trommius  0?o£,  the  latter  ©««.  -ox,  Abir,  the  potent  one. 
has  the  plural  d*T3X>  Abirim,  the  potent  ones.  Man  did  eat  the 
bread  of  the  Abirim,  "  angels'  food,"  conveys  no  idea  ;  the  manna  was 
the  bread   provided  miraculously,  and  was  therefore  called  the   food 

(4)  Maimonides  telle  us,  that  it  was  not  lawful  to  utter  this  name,  except  in  the 
eanctutry,  and  by  the  priests.  "  Nomen,  quod,  at  nosti,  non  proferre  licet,  nisi 
in  sanctuario,  et  a  sacerdotibus  Dei  Sanctis,  solum  in  benedictione  Bacerdotum,  ut 
et  a  sacerdote  magno  in  die  jejunii." 


468  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

of  the  powerful  ones,  of  them  who  have  power  over  all  nature,  the 
one  God. 

O'JHN.  Adonim,  is  the  plural  form  of  |nx»  Adon,  a  governor.  "  If  I  be 
Adonim,  masters,  where  is  my  fear?"  Mai.  i,  6.  Many  other  instances 
might  be  given,  as,  "  Remember  thy  Creators  in  the  days  of  thy  youth." 
"  The  knowledge  of  the  Holy  Ones  is  understanding."  "  There  be 
higher  than  they."  Heb.  High  Ones ;  and  in  Daniel,  "  the  Watchers 
and  the  Holy  Ones." 

Other  plural  forms  of  speech  also  occur  when  the  one  true  God  only 
is  spoken  of.  "  And  God  said,  Let  us  make  man  in  our  own  image, 
after  our  likeness."  "And  the  Lord  God  said,  Behold  the  man  is 
become  like  one  of  us."  "And  the  Lord  said,  Let  us  go  down." — 
"Because  there  God  appeared  to  him."  Heb.  God  they  appeared,  the 
verb  being  plural.  These  instances  need  not  be  multiplied :  they  are 
the  common  forms  of  speech  in  the  sacred  Scriptures,  which  no  criti. 
cism  has  been  able  to  resolve  into  mere  idioms,  and  which  only  the 
doctrine  of  a  plurality  of  persons  in  the  unity  of  the  Godhead  can  satis- 
factorily  explain.  If  they  were  mere  idioms,  they  could  not  have  been 
misunderstood  by  those  to  whom  the  Hebrew  tongue  was  native,  to 
imply  plurality ;  but  of  this  we  have  sufficient  evidence,  which  shall 
be  adduced  when  we  speak  of  the  faith  of  the  Jewish  Church.  They 
have  been  acknowledged  to  form  a  striking  singularity  in  the  Hebrew 
language,  even  by  those  who  have  objected  to  the  conclusion  drawn 
from  them ;  and  the  question,  therefore,  has  been  to  find  an  hypothesis, 
which  should  account  for  a  peculiarity,  which  is  found  in  no  other  lan- 
guage, with  the  same  circumstances.  (5) 

Some  have  supposed  angels  to  be  associated  with  God  when  these 
plural  forms  occur.  For  this  there  is  no  foundation  in  the  texts  them- 
selves,  and  it  is  beside  a  manifest  absurdity.  Others,  that  the  style  of 
royalty  was  adopted,  which  is  refuted  by  two  considerations — that  al- 
mighty God  in  other  instances  speaks  in  the  singular  and  not  in  the  plural 
number ;  and  that  this  was  not  the  style  of  the  sovereigns  of  the  earth 
when  Moses  or  any  of  the  sacred  penmen  composed  their  writings ;  no 
instance  of  it  being  found  in  any  of  the  inspired  books.  A  third  opinion 
is,  that  the  plural  form  of  speaking  of  God  was  adopted  by  the  Hebrews 
from  their  ancestors,  who  were  polytheists,  and  that  the  ancient  theo- 

(5)  The  argument  for  the  trinity  drawn  from  the  plural  appellations  given  to 
God  in  the  Hebrew  Scriptures,  was  opposed  by  the  younger  Buxtorf ;  who  yet 
admits  that  this  argument  should  not  altogether  be  rejected  among  Chris- 
tians, "  for  upon  the  same  principle  on  which  not  a  few  of  the  Jews  refer  this 
emphatical  application  of  the  plural  number  to  a  plurality  of  powers  or  of 
influences,  or  of  operations,  that  is,  ad  extra;  why  may  we  not  refer  it,  ad  intra, 
to  a  plurality  of  persons  and  to  personal  works  1  Yea,  who  certainty  knows 
what  that  was  which  the  ancient  Jews  understood  bv  this  plurality  of  powers 
and  faculties  ?" 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  *U.J 

logical  term  was  retained  after  the  unity  of  God  was  acknowledged. 
This  assumes  what  is  totally  without  proof,  that  the  ancestors  of  the 
Hebrews  were  polytheists ;  and  could  that  be  made  out,  it  would  leave 
it  still  to  be  accounted  for,  why  other  names  of  the  Deity  equally  ancient, 
for  any  thing  that  appears  to  the  contrary,  are  not  also  plural,  and  es- 
pecially the  high  name  of  Jehovah  ;  and  why,  more  particularly  the  very 
appellation  in  question,  Aleim,  should  have  a  singular  form  also,  n^X  in 
the  same  language.  The  grammatical  reasons  which  have  been  offered 
are  equally  unsatisfactory.  If  then  no  hypothesis  explains  this  pecu- 
liarity, but  that  which  concludes  it  to  indicate  that  mode  of  the  Divine 
existence  which  was  expressed  in  later  theology  by  the  phrase,  a  trinity 
of  persons,  the  inference  is  too  powerful  to  be  easily  resisted,  that  these 
plural  forms  must  be  considered  as  intended  to  intimate  the  plurality  of 
persons  in  essential  connection  with  one  supreme  and  adorable  Deity. 

This  argument,  however,  taken  alone,  powerful  as  it  has  often  been 
justly  deemed,  does  not  contain  the  strength  of  the  case.  For  natural 
as  it  is  to  expect,  presuming  this  to  be  the  mode  of  the  Divine  existence, 
that  some  of  his  names  which,  according  to  the  expressive  and  simple 
character  of  the  Hebrew  language,  are  descriptions  of  realities,  and  that 
some  of  the  modes  of  expression  adopted  even  in  the  earliest  revelations, 
should  carry  some  intimation  of  a  fact,  which,  as  essentially  connected 
with  redemption,  the  future  complete  revelation  of  the  redeeming  scheme 
was  intended  fully  to  unfold ;  yet,  were  these  plural  titles  and  forms  of 
construction  blotted  out,  the  evidence  of  a  plurality  of  Divine  persons  in 
the  Godhead  would  still  remain  in  its  strongest  form.  For  that  evidence 
is  not  merely,  that  God  has  revealed  himself  under  plural  appellations, 
nor  that  these  are  constructed  with  sometimes  singular  and  sometimes 
plural  forms  of  speech ;  but  that  three  persons,  and  three  persons  only 
are  spoken  of  in  the  Scriptures  under  Divine  titles,  each  having  the 
peculiar  attributes  of  Divinity  ascribed  to  him  ;  and  yet  that  the  first  and 
leading  principle  of  the  same  book,  which  speaks  thus  of  the  character 
and  works  of  these  persons,  should  be,  that  there  is  but  one  God.  This 
point  being  once  established,  it  may  be  asked  which  of  the  hypotheses, 
the  orthodox,  the  Arian,  or  the  Socinian,  agrees  best  with  this  plain  and 
explicit  doctrine  of  Holy  Writ.  Plain  and  explicit,  I  say,  not  as  to  the 
mode  of  the  Divine  existence,  not  as  to  the  comprehension  of  it,  but  as 
to  this  particular,  that  the  doctrine  itself  is  plainly  stated  in  the  Scriptures. 

Let  this  point  then  be  examined,  and  it  will  be  seen  even  that  the  very 
number  three  has  this  pre-eminence  ;  that  the  application  of  these  names 
and  powers  is  restrained  to  it,  and  never  strays  beyond  it ;  and  that  those 
who  confide  in  the  testimony  of  God,  rather  than  in  the  opinions  of  men, 
have  sufficient  Scriptural  reason  to  distinguish  their  faith  from  the  unbe 
lief  of  others  by  avowing  themselves  Trinitarians.  (6) 

(G)  The  word  rptaj,  trinitas,  came  into  use  in  the  second  century. 


470  THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES.  [PART 

The  solemn  form  of  benediction,  in  which  the  Jewish  high  priests 
were  commanded  to  bless  the  children  of  Israel,  has  in  it  this  peculiar 
indication,  and  singularly  answers  to  the  form  of  benediction  so  general 
in  the  close  of  the  apostolic  epistles,  and  which  so  appropriately  closes 
the  solemn  services  of  Christian  worship.  It  is  given  in  Numbers  vi, 
24-27. 

Jehovah  bless  thee  and  keep  thee : 

Jehovah  make  his  face  to  shine  upon  thee,  and  be  gracious  unto  thee  : 

Jehovah  lift  his  countenance  upon  thee,  and  give  thee  peace. 

If  the  three  members  of  this  form  of  benediction  be  attentively  con- 
sidered, they  will  be  found  to  agree  respectively  to  the  three  persons 
taken  in  the  usual  order  of  the  Father,  the  Son,  and  the  Holy  Ghost. 
The  Father  is  the  author  of  blessing  and  preservation,  illumination  and 
grace  are  from  the  Son,  illumination  and  peace  from  the  Spirit,  the 
teacher  of  truth  and  the  Comforter.  (Vide  Jones' 's  Catholic  Doctrine.) 

"  The  first  member  of  the  formula  expresses  the  benevolent  '  love  of 
God ;'  the  father  of  mercies  and  fountain  of  all  good :  the  second  well 
comports  with  the  redeeming  and  reconciling  •  grace  of  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ ;'  and  the  last  is  appropriate  to  the  purity,  consolation,  and  joy, 
which  are  received  from  the  *  communion  of  the  Holy  Spirit.'  "  (Smith's 
Person  of  Christ.) 

The  connection  of  certain  specific  blessings  in  this  form  of  benedic- 
tion with  the  Jehovah  mentioned  three  times  distinctly,  and  those  which 
are  represented  as  flowing  from  the  Father,  Son,  and  Spirit  in  the  apos- 
tolic form,  would  be  a  singular  coincidence  if  it  even  stood  alone ;  but 
the  light  of  the  same  eminent  truth,  though  not  yet  fully  revealed, 
breaks  forth  from  other  partings  of  the  clouds  of  the  early  morning  of 
revelation. 

The  inner  part  of  the  Jewish  sanctuary  was  called  the  holy  of  holies, 
that  is,  the  holy  place  of  the  Holy  Ones ;  and  the  number  of  these  is 
indicated,  and  limited  to  three,  in  the  celebrated  vision  of  Isaiah,  and 
that  with  great  explicitness.  The  scene  of  that  vision  is  the  holy  place 
of  the  temple,  and  lies  therefore  in  the  very  abode  and  residence  of  the 
Holy  Ones,  here  celebrated  by  the  seraphs  who  veiled  their  faces  before 
them.  And  one  cried  unto  another,  and  said,  "  Holy,  holy,  holy  is  the 
Lord  of  hosts."  This  passage,  if  it  stood  alone,  might  be  eluded  by 
saying  that  this  act  of  Divine  adoration  here  mentioned,  is  merely  em- 
phatic, or  in  the  Hebrew  mode  of  expressing  a  superlative;  though  that  is 
assumed,  and  by  no  means  proved.  It  is  however  worthy  of  serious  notice, 
that  this  distinct  trine  act  of  adoration,  which  has  been  so  often  supposed 
to  mark  a  plurality  of  persons  as  the  objects  of  it,  is  answered  by  a  voice 
from  that  excellent  glory  which  overwhelmed  the  mind  of  the  prophet 
when  he  was  favoured  with  the  vision,  responding  in  the  same  language 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES.  471 

of  plurality  in  which  the  doxology  of  the  seraphs  is  expressed.  "  Also 
I  heard  the  voice  of  the  Lord,  saying,  Whom  shall  I  send,  and  who  will 
go  for  us  ?"  But  this  is  not  the  only  evidence  that  in  this  passage  the 
Holy  Ones,  who  were  addressed  each  by  his  appropriate  and  equal 
designation  of  holy,  were  the  three  Divine  subsistences  in  the  Godhead. 
The  being  addressed  is  the  "  Lord  of  hosts."  This  all  acknowledge 
to  include  the  Father;  but  the  Evangelist  John,  xii,  41,  in  manifest 
reference  to  this  transaction,  observes,  "  These  things  said  Esaias,  when 
he  saw  his  (Christ's)  glory  and  spake  of  him."  In  this  vision,  therefore, 
we  have  the  Son  also,  whose  glory  on  this  occasion  the  prophet  is  said 
to  have  beheld.  Acts  xxviii,  25,  determines  that  there  was  also  the 
presence  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  "  Well  spake  the  Holy  Ghost  by  Esaiaa 
the  prophet  unto  our  fathers,  saying,  Go  unto  this  people  and  say,  Hear- 
ing  ye  shall  hear  and  not  understand,  and  seeing  ye  shall  see  and  not 
perceive,"  &c.  These  words,  quoted  from  Isaiah,  the  Apostle  Paul 
declares  to  have  been  spoken  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  Isaiah  declares 
them  to  have  been  spoken  on  this  very  occasion  by  the  "  Lord  of  hosts." 
"  And  he  said,  Go  and  tell  this  people,  Hear  ye  indeed  and  understand 
not,  and  see  ye  indeed  but  perceive  not,"  &c. 

Now  let  all  these  circumstances  be  placed  together — the  place,  the 
holy  place  of  the  Holy  Ones ;  the  repetition  of  the  homage,  three  times, 
Holy,  holy,  holy — the  one  Jehovah  of  hosts,  to  whom  it  was  addressed, 
— the  plural  pronoun  used  by  this  one  Jehovah,  us ;  the  declaration  of 
an  evangelist,  that  on  this  occasion  Isaiah  saw  the  glory  of  Christ  ;  the 
declaration  of  St.  Paul,  that  the  Lord  of  hosts  who  spoke  on  that  occa- 
sion was  the  Holy  Ghost  ;  and  the  conclusion  will  not  appear  to  bo 
without  most  powerful  authority,  both  circumstantial  and  declaratory, 
that  the  adoration,  Holy,  holy,  holy,  referred  to  the  Divine  three,  in  the 
one  essence  of  the  Lord  of  hosts.  Accordingly,  in  the  book  of  Revela- 
tions, where  "  the  Lamb"  is  so  constantly  represented  as  sitting  upon  the 
Divine  throne,  and  where  he  by  name  is  associated  with  the  Father,  as 
the  object  of  the  equal  homage  and  praise  of  saints  and  angels ;  this 
scene  from  Isaiah  is  transferred  into  the  fourth  chapter,  and  the  "  living 
creatures,"  the  seraphim  of  the  prophet,  are  heard  in  the  same  strain, 
and  with  the  same  trine  repetition,  saying,  "  Holy,  holy,  holy,  Lord  God 
Almighty,  which  was,  and  is,  and  is  to  corned  Isaiah,  xlviii,  16,  also 
makes  this  threefold  distinction  and  limitation.  "  And  now  the  Lord 
God,  and  his  Spirit,  hath  sent  me."  The  words  are  manifestly  spoken 
by  Messiah,  who  declares  himself  sent  by  the  Lord  God,  and  by  his  Spirit. 
Some  render  it,  hath  sent  me  and  his  Spirit,  the  latter  term  being  also 
in  the  accusative  case.  This  strengthens  the  application,  by  bringing 
the  phrase  nearer  to  that  so  often  used  by  our  Lord  in  his  discourses, 
who  speaks  of  himself  and  the  Spirit,  being  sent  by  the  Father.  "  Tho 
Father  which  sent  me — the  Comforter  whom  I  will  send  unto  you  from 


«x72  THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES.  [PART 

the  Falher,  who  proceedeth  from  the  Father."  Isaiah  xxxiv,  16,  "Seek 
ye  out  of  the  book  of  the  Lord,  and  read,  for  my  mouth  it  hath  com- 
manded,  and  his  Spirit  it  hath  gathered  them."  "  Here  is  one  person 
speaking  of  the  Spirit,  another  person."  (Jones  on  the  Trinity.)  Hag. 
ii,  5,  7,  "  I  am  with  you,  saith  the  Lord  of  hosts,  according  to  the  word 
that  I  covenanted  with  you  when  you  came  out  of  Egypt,  so  my  Spirit 
remaineth  among  you  ;  fear  ye  not.  For  thus  saith  the  Lord  of  hosts, 
I  will  shake  all  nations,  and  the  Desire  of  all  nations  shall  come."  Here 
also  we  have  three  persons  distinctly  mentioned ;  the  Lord  of  hosts,  his 
Spirit,  and  the  Desire  of  all  nations. 

Many  other  passages  might  be  given,  in  which  there  is  this  change 
of  persons,  sometimes  enumerating  two,  sometimes  three,  but  never  more 
than  three,  arrayed  in  these  eminent  and  Divine  characters.  The  pas- 
sages in  the  New  Testament  are  familiar  to  every  one :  "  Baptizing 
them  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost." 
"  The  grace  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  the  love  of  God,  and  the  com- 
munion of  the  Holy  Ghost,"  with  others  in  which  the  sacred  three,  and 
three  only,  are  thus  collocated  as  objects  of  equal  trust  and  honour,  and 
equally  the  fountain  and  the  source  of  grace  and  benediction. 

On  the  celebrated  passage  in  1  John  v,  7,  "  There  are  three  that  bear 
record  in  heaven,"  I  say  nothing,  because  authorities  against  its  genuine- 
ness are  found  in  the  ranks  of  the  orthodox,  and  among  those  who  do 
not  captiously  make  objections  ;  and  because  it  would  scarcely  be  fair 
to  adduce  it  as  a  proof,  unless  the  arguments  on  each  side  were  exhibit- 
ed, which  would  lead  to  discussions  which  lie  beside  the  design  of  this 
work,  and  more  properly  have  their  place  in  separate  and  distinct  trea- 
tises. The  recent  revival  of  the  inquiry  into  the  genuineness  of  this 
text,  however,  shows  that  the  point  is  far  from  being  critically  settled 
against  the  passage,  as  a  true  portion  of  Holy  Writ,  and  the  argument 
from  the  context  is  altogether  in  favour  of  those  who  advocate  it,  the 
hiatus  in  the  sense  never  having  been  satisfactorily  supplied  by  those 
who  reject  it.  This  is  of  more  weight  in  arguments  of  this  kind  than  is 
often  allowed.  As  to  the  doctrine  of  the  text,  it  has  elsewhere  abund- 
ant proof. 

It  has  now  been  shown,  that  while  the  unity  of  God  is  to  be  con- 
sidered a  fundamental  doctrine  of  the  Scriptures,  laid  down  with  the 
utmost  solemnity,  and  guarded  with  the  utmost  care,  by  precepts,  by 
threatenings,  by  promises,  by  tremendous  punishments  of  polytheism 
and  idolatry  among  the  Jews,  the  very  names  of  God,  as  given  in  the 
revelation  made  of  himself,  have  plural  forms  and  are  connected  with 
plural  modes  of  speech  ;  that  other  indications  of  plurality  are  given  in 
various  parts  of  Holy  Writ ;  and  that  this  plurality  is  restricted  to  three. 
On  those  texts,  however,  which  in  their  terms  denote  a  plurality  and  a 
trinity,  the  proof  does  not  wholly  or  chiefly  rest,  and  they  have  been 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  473 

only  adduced  as  introductory  to  instances  too  numerous  to  be  all  ex. 
amined,  in  which  two  distinct  persons  are  spoken  of,  sometimes  connect, 
edly  and  sometimes  separately,  as  associated  with  God  in  his  perfections 
and  incommunicable  glories,  and  as  performing  works  of  unequivocal 
Divine  majesty  and  infinite  power,  and  thus  together  manifesting  that 
tri-unity  of  the  Godhead  which  the  true  Church  has  in  all  ages  adored 
and  magnified.  This  is  the  great  proof  upon  which  the  doctrine  rests. 
The  first  of  these  two  persons  is  the  Son,  the  second  the  Spirit.  Of  the 
former,  it  will  be  observed  that  the  titles  of  Jehovah,  Lord,  God,  King, 
King  of  Israel,  Redeemer,  Saviour,  and  other  names  of  God,  are  ascribed 
to  him, — that  he  is  invested  with  the  attributes  of  eternity,  omnipotence, 
ubiquity,  infinite  wisdom,  holiness,  goodness,  &c, — that  he  was  the 
Leader,  the  visible  King,  and  the  object  of  the  worship  of  the  Jews, — 
that  he  forms  the  great  subject  of  prophecy,  and  is  spoken  of  in  the  pre- 
dictions of  the  prophets  in  language,  which  if  applied  to  men  or  to  angels 
would  by  the  Jews  have  been  considered  not  as  sacred  but  idolatrous, 
and  which,  therefore,  except  that  it  agreed  with  their  ancient  faith,  would 
totally  have  destroyed  the  credit  of  those  writings, — that  he  is  eminently 
known  both  in  the  Old  Testament  and  in  the  New,  as  the  Son  of  God,  an 
appellative  which  is  sufficiently  proved  to  have  been  considered  as  im- 
plying an  assumption  of  Divinity  by  the  circumstance  that,  for  asserting 
it,  our  Lord  was  condemned  to  die  as  a  blasphemer  by  the  Jewish  san- 
hedrim,— that  he  became  incarnate  in  our  nature, — wrought  miracles 
by  his  own  original  power,  and  not,  as  his  servants,  in  the  name  of  an- 
other,— that  he  authoritatively  forgave  sin, — that  for  the  sake  of  his 
sacrifice,  sin  is  forgiven  to  the  end  of  the  world,  and  for  the  sake  of 
that  alone, — that  he  rose  from  the  dead  to  seal  all  these  pretensions  to 
Divinity, — that  he  is  seated  upon  the  throne  of  the  universe,  all  power 
being  given  to  him  in  heaven  and  in  earth, — that  his  inspired  apostles 
exhibit  him  as  the  Creator  of  all  things  visible  and  invisible  ;  as  the 
true  God  and  the  eternal  life ;  as  the  King  eternal,  immortal,  invisible, 
the  only  wise  God  and  our  Saviour, — that  they  offer  to  him  the  highest 
worship, — that  they  trust  in  him,  and  command  all  others  to  trust  in  him 
for  eternal  life, — that  he  is  the  head  over  all  things, — that  angels  wor- 
ship him  and  render  him  service, — that  he  will  raise  the  dead  at  the 
last  day, — judge  the  secrets  of  men's  hearts,  and  finally  determine  the 
everlasting  state  of  the  righteous  and  the  wicked. 

This  is  the  outline  of  Scriptural  testimony  as  to  the  Son.  As  to  the 
Divine  character  of  the  Spirit,  it  is  equally  explicit.  He  too  is  called 
Jehovah ;  Jehovah  of  hosts ;  God.  Eternity,  omnipotence,  ubiquity, 
infinite  wisdom,  and  other  attributes  of  Deity,  are  ascribed  to  him.  He  is 
introduced  as  an  agent  in  the  work  of  the  creation,  and  to  him  is  ascribed 
the  conservation  of  all  living  beings.  He  is  the  source  of  the  inspira- 
tion of  prophets  and  apostles ;  the  object  of  worship ;  the  efficient  agent 


474  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

in  illuminating,  comforting,  and  sanctifying  the  souls  of  men.  He  makes 
intercession  for  the  saints ;  quickens  the  dead,  and,  finally,  he  is  asso- 
ciated with  the  Father  and  the  Son,  in  the  form  of  baptism  into  the  one 
name  of  God,  and  in  the  apostolic  form  of  benediction,  as  equally  with 
them  the  source  and  fountain  of  grace  and  blessedness.  These  deci- 
sive points  I  shall  proceed  to  establish  by  the  express  declarations  of 
various  passages,  both  of  the  Old  and  New  Testament.  When  that  is 
done,  the  argument  will  then  be,  that  as  on  the  one  hand  the  doctrine 
of  Scripture  is,  that  there  is  but  one  God  ;  and,  on  the  other,  that 
throughout  both  Testaments,  three  persons  are,  in  unequivocal  language, 
and  by  unequivocal  circumstances,  declared  to  be  Divine  ;  the  only  con. 
elusion  which  can  harmonize  these  otherwise  opposite,  contradictory,  and 
most  misleading  propositions,  and  declarations,  is,  that  the  three  per- 
sons are  one  God. 

In  the  prevalent  faith  of  the  Christian  Church,  neither  of  these  views 
is  for  a  moment  lost  sight  of.  Thus  it  exactly  harmonizes  with  the 
Scriptures,  nor  can  it  be  charged  with  greater  mystery  than  is  assign- 
able to  them.  The  trinity  is  asserted,  but  the  unity  is  not  obscured ; 
the  unity  is  confessed,  but  without  denial  of  the  trinity.  No  figures  of 
speech,  no  unnatural  modes  of  interpretation  are  resorted  to,  to  recon- 
cile these  views  with  human  conceptions,  which  they  must  infinitely 
transcend.  This  is  the  character  of  the  heresies  which  have  arisen  on 
this  subject.  They  all  spring  from  the  attempt  to  make  this  mystery 
of  God  conceivable  by  the  human  mind,  and  less  a  stone  of  stumbling 
to  the  pride  of  reason.  On  the  contrary,  "  the  faith  of  God's  elect,"  as 
embodied  in  the  creeds  and  confessions  of  all  truly  evangelical  Churches, 
follow  the  example  of  the  Scriptures  in  entirely  overlooking  these  low 
considerations,  and  "  declaring  the  thing  as  it  is,"  with  all  its  mystery 
and  incomprehensibleness,  to  the  Jews  a  stumbling  block,  and  to  the 
Greeks  foolishness.  It  declares  "  that  we  worship  one  God  in  trinity, 
and  trinity  in  unity  ;  neither  confounding  the  persons  nor  dividing  the 
substance ;  for  there  is  one  person  of  the  Father,  another  of  the  Son, 
and  another  of  the  Holy  Ghost ;  but  the  Godhead  of  the  Father,  of  the 
Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost  is  all  one ;  the  glory  equal,  the  majesty 
coeternal.  So  the  Father  is  God,  the  Son  is  God,  and  the  Holy  Ghost 
is  God ;  and  yet  there  are  not  three  Gods,  but  one  God."  (Athanasian 
Creed.)  Or,  as  it  is  well  expressed  by  an  eminent  modern,  as  great  a 
master  of  reason  and  science  as  he  was  of  theology  :  "  There  is  one 
Divine  nature  or  essence,  common  unto  three  persons,  incomprehensibly 
united,  and  ineffably  distinguished ;  united  in  essential  attributes,  dis- 
tinguished by  peculiar  idioms  and  relations  ;  all  equally  infinite  in  every 
Divine  perfection,  each  different  from  the  other  in  order  and  manner 
of  subsistence  ;  that  there  is  a  mutual  existence  of  one  in  all,  and  all  in 
one ;  a  communication  without  any  deprivation  or  diminution  in  the 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  475 

communicant ;  an  eternal  generation,  and  an  eternal  procession  without 
precedence  or  succession,  without  proper  causality  or  dependence ;  a 
Father  imparting  his  own,  and  a  Son  receiving  his  Father's  life,  and  a 
Spirit  issuing  from  both,  without  any  division  or  multiplication  of  essence. 
These  are  notions  which  may  well  puzzle  our  reason  in  conceiving  how 
they  agree ;  but  ought  not  to  stagger  our  faith  in  asserting  that  they 
are  true  ;  for  if  the  Holy  Scripture  teacheth  us  plainly,  and  frequently 
doth  inculcate  upon  us,  that  there  is  but  one  true  God  ;  if  it  as  manifestly 
doth  ascribe  to  the  three  persons  of  the  blessed  trinity,  the  same  august 
names,  the  same  peculiar  characters,  the  same  Divine  attributes,  the 
same  superlatively  admirable  operations  of  creation  and  providence ;  if  it 
also  doth  prescribe  to  them  the  same  supreme  honours,  services,  praises, 
and  acknowledgments  to  be  paid  to  them  all ;  this  may  be  abundantly 
enough  to  satisfy  our  minds,  to  stop  our  mouths,  to  smother  all  doubt 
and  dispute  about  this  high  and  holy  mystery."  (Dr.  Barrow's  Defence 
of  the  Trinity.) 

One  observation  more,  before  we  proceed  to  the  Scriptural  evidence 
of  the  positions  above  laid  down,  shall  close  this  chapter.  The  proof 
of  the  doctrine  of  the  trinity,  I  have  said,  grounds  itself  on  the  firm  foun- 
dation of  the  Divine  unity,  and  it  closes  with  it ;  and  this  may  set  the  true 
believer  at  rest,  when  he  is  assailed  by  the  sophistical  enemies  of  his  faith 
with  the  charge  of  dividing  his  regards,  as  he  directs  his  prayers  to  one 
or  other  of  the  three  persons  of  the  Godhead.  For  the  time  at  least,  he 
is  said  to  honour  one  to  the  exclusion  of  the  others.  The  true  Scriptural 
doctrine  of  the  unity  of  God,  will  remove  this  objection.  It  is  not  the 
Socinian  notion  of  unity.  Theirs  is  the  unity  of  one,  ours  the  unity  of 
three.  We  do  not,  however,  as  they  seem  to  suppose,  think  the  Divine 
essence  divisible,  and  participated  by,  and  shared  among,  three  persons  ; 
but  wholly  and  undividedly  possessed  and  enjoyed.  Whether,  therefore, 
we  address  our  prayers  and  adorations  to  the  Father,  Son,  or  Holy 
Ghost,  we  address  the  same  adorable  Being,  the  one  living  and  true  God. 
f  Jehovah,  our  Aleim,  is  one  Jehovah."  With  reference  to  the  relations 
which  each  person  bears  to  us  in  the  redeeming  economy,  our  ap- 
proaches to  the  Father  are  to  be  made  through  the  mediation  of  the 
Son,  and  by,  or  with  dependence  upon,  the  assistance  of  the  Holy  Spi- 
rit. Yet,  as  the  authority  of  the  New  Testament  shows,  this  does  not 
preclude  direct  prayer  to  Christ  and  to  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  direct 
ascriptions  of  glory  and  honour  to  each.  In  all  this  we  glorify  the  one 
"  God  over  all,  blessed  for  evermore." 


476  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES  [PART 

CHAPTER  X. 

Trinity — Pre-existence  of  Christ. 

By  establishing,  on  Scriptural  authority,  the  pre-existence  of  our  Lord, 
we  take  the  first  step  in  the  demonstration  of  his  absolute  Divinity.  His 
pre-existence,  indeed,  simply  considered,  does  not  evince  his  Godhead, 
and  is  not,  therefore,  a  proof  against  the  Arian  hypothesis  ;  but  it  de- 
stroys the  Socinian  notion,  that  he  was  a  man  only.  For  since  no  one 
contends  for  the  pre-existence  of  human  souls,  and  if  they  did,  the  doctrine 
would  be  refuted  by  their  own  consciousness,  it  is  clear,  that  if  Christ 
existed  before  his  incarnation,  he  is  not  a  mere  man,  whatever  his  nature, 
by  other  arguments,  may  be  proved  to  be. 

This  point  has  been  felt  to  press  so  heavily  upon  the  doctrine  of  the 
simple  humanity  of  Christ,  that  both  ancient  and  modern  Socinians  have 
bent  against  it  all  those  arts  of  interpretation  which,  more  than  any  thing 
else,  show  both  the  hopelessness  of  their  cause,  and  the  pertinacity 
with  which  they  cling  to  oft  and  easily  refuted  error.  I  shall  dwell  a 
little  on  this  point,  because  it  will  introduce  some  instances  in  illustra- 
tion of  the  Deculiar  character  of  the  Socinian  mode  of  perverting  the 
Scriptures. 

The  existence  of  our  Lord  prior  to  his  incarnation  might  be  forcibly 
argued  from  the  declarations  that  he  was  "sent  into  the  world  ;"  that 
"  he  came  in  the  flesh  ;"  that  "  he  took  part  of  flesh  and  blood ;"  that  he 
was  "  found  in  fashion  as  a  man  ;"  and  other  similar  phrases.  These 
are  modes  of  speech  which  are  used  of  no  other  person ;  which  are 
never  adopted  to  express  the  natural  birth,  and  the  commencement  of 
the  existence  of  ordinary  men  ;  and  which  Socinianism,  therefore,  leaves 
without  a  reason,  and  without  an  explanation,  when  used  of  Christ. 
But  arguments  drawn  from  these  phrases  are  rendered  wholly  unneces- 
sary, by  the  frequent  occurrence  of  passages  which  explicitly  declare 
his  pre-existence,  and  by  which  the  ingenuity  of  unsubmissive  criticism 
has  been  always  foiled ;  the  interpretations  given  being  too  forced,  and 
too  unsupported,  either  by  the  common  rules  of  criticism,  or  by  the 
idioms  of  language,  to  produce  the  least  impression  upon  any,  not  pre- 
viously disposed  to  torture  the  word  of  God  in  order  to  make  it  subservient 
to  an  error. 

The  first  of  these  proofs  of  the  pre-existence  of  Christ  is  from  the 
testimony  of  the  Baptist,  John  i,  15,  "  He  that  cometh  after  me  is  pre- 
ferred before  me,  for  he  was  before  me ;"  or  as  it  is  in  verse  30,  "  After 
me  cometh  a  man  which  is  preferred  before  me,  for  he  was  before  me." 

The  Socinian  exposition  is,  "  The  Christ,  who  is  to  begin  his  ministry 
after  me  has,  by  the  Divine  appointment,  been  preferred  before  me, 
because  he  is  my  chief  or  principal."     Thus  they  interpret  the  last 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES.  477 

clause  "  for  he  was  before  me,"  in  the  sense  of  dignity,  and  not  of 
time,  though  St.  John  uses  the  same  word  to  denote  priority  of  time, 
in  several  places  of  his  Gospel,  "  If  the  world  hate  you,  you  know  that 
it  hated  me,  before  it  hated  you  ;"  and  ch.  i,  41  ;  viii,  7  ;  xx,  4-8.  If 
they  take  the  phrase  in  the  second  clause  £fx*potf^sv  fix  yeyovsv  in  the 
sense  of  "  preferred,"  then,  by  their  mode  of  rendering  the  last  clause, 
as  Bishop  Pearson  has  observed,  "  a  thing  is  made  the  reason  of  itself, 
which  is  a  great  absurdity  and  a  vain  tautology." — "  He  is  preferred 
before  me,  because  he  is  my  chief;"  whereas  by  taking  •crpwros  (xs  in 
the  sense  of  time,  a  reason  for  this  preference  is  given.  There  is, 
however,  another  rendering  of  the  second  clause  which  makes  the  pas- 
sage  still  more  impracticable  in  the  sense  of  the  Socinians.  E|uwrpo(fdsv 
is  never  in  the  Septuagint  or  in  the  New  Testament  used  for  dignity  or 
rank  :  but  refers  either  to  place  or  time,  and  if  taken  in  the  sense  of  time, 
the  rendering  will  be,  "  He  that  cometh  after  me  was  before  me  ;"  and 
on,  in  the  next  clause,  signifying  "certainly,"  "truly,"  (Schleusner 
sub  voce,)  the  last  clause  will  be  made  emphatical,  "  certainly,  he  was 
before  me,"  and  is  to  be  considered,  not  as  giving  a  reason  for  the  senti- 
ment in  the  preceding  clause,  or  as  tautological,  but  as  explanatory  and 
impressive  ;  a  mode  of  speaking  exceedingly  natural  when  so  great  a 
doctrine,  and  so  high  a  mystery  was  to  be  declared,  that  he  who  was 
born  after  John,  was  yet,  in  point  of  existence,  before  him ; — "  certainly, 
he  was  before  me."  This  rendering  of  the  second  clause  is  adopted  by 
several  eminent  critics ;  but  whether  this  or  the  common  version  be 
preferred,  the  verb  in  the  last  clause,  he  was  before  me,  sufficiently 
fixes  zspuros  in  the  sense  of  priority  of  time.  Had  it  referred  to  the 
rank  and  dignity  of  Christ,  it  would  not  have  been,  "  he  was,"  but  "  he 
is  before  me,"  s«r«  not  *)v. 

The  passages  which  express  that  Christ  came  down  from  heaven,  are 
next  to  be  considered.  He  styles  himself  "  the  bread  of  God  which 
cometh  down  from  heaven. — The  living  bread  which  came  down  from 
heaven. — He  that  cometh  from  above  is  above  all ;  he  that  is  of  the 
earth  is  earthly,  and  speaketh  of  the  earth  ;  he  that  cometh  from  heaven 
is  above  all ;"  and  in  his  discourse  with  Nicodemus,  "  No  man  hath 
ascended  up  to  heaven,  but  he  that  came  down  from  heaven,  even  the  Son 
of  man  which  is  in  heaven."  In  what  manner  are  declarations  so  plain 
.  and  unequivocal  to  be  eluded,  and  by  what  arts  are  they  to  be  interpreted, 
into  nothing?  This  shall  be  considered.  Socinus  and  his  early  dis- 
ciples, in  order  to  account  for  these  phrases,  supposed  that  Christ., 
between  the  time  of  his  birth  and  entrance  upon  his  office,  was  translated 
into  heaven,  and  there  remained  some  time,  that  he  might  see  and  hear 
those  things  which  he  was  to  publish  in  the  world.  This  hypothesis, 
however,  only  proves  the  difficulty,  or  rather  the  impossibility  of  intea. 
preting  these  passages,  so  as  to  turn  away  their  hostile  aspect  from  the 


478  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

errors  of  man.  It  is  supported  by  no  passage  of  Scripture,  by  no  tradi- 
tion, by  no  reason  in  the  nature  of  the  thing,  or  in  the  discourse.  The 
modern  Socinians,  therefore,  rinding  the  position  of  their  elder  brethren 
untenable,  resolve  the  whole  into  figure,  the  most  convenient  method  of 
evading  the  difficulty,  and  tell  us,  that  as  we  should  naturally  say,  that  a 
person  who  would  become  acquainted  with  the  secret  purposes  of  God, 
must  ascend  to  heaven  to  converse  with  him,  and  return  to  make  them 
known,  so  our  Lord's  words  do  not  necessarily  imply  a  literal  ascent 
and  descent,  but  merely  this,  "  that  he  alone  was  admitted  to  an  intimate 
knowledge  of  the  Divine  will,  and  was  commissioned  to  reveal  it  to  men." 
{Bdsham's  Calm  Inquiry.) 

In  the  passages  quoted  above,  as  declarations  of  the  pre-existence  of 
Christ,  it  will  be  seen  that  there  are  two  phrases  to  be  accounted  for, 
— ascending  into  heaven, — and,  coming  down  from  heaven.  The  former 
is  said  to  mean  the  being  admitted  to  an  intimate  knowledge  of  the 
Divine  counsels.  But  if  this  were  the  sense,  it  could  not  be  true  that 
"  no  man"  had  thus  ascended  but  "  the  Son  of  man  ;"  since  Moses  and  all 
the  prophets  in  succession  had  been  admitted  to  "  an  intimate  knowledge 
of  the  Divine  counsels,"  and  had  been  "  commissioned"  to  reveal  them. 
It  is  nothing  to  say  that  our  Lord's  acquaintance  with  the  Divine  counsels 
was  more  deep  and  comprehensive.  The  case  is  not  stated  compara- 
tively, but  exclusively, — "  No  man  hath  ascended  into  heaven  but  the 
Son  of  man ;"  no  man,  but  himself,  had  been  in  heaven.  (7)  Allowing 
therefore  the  principle  of  the  Socinian  gloss,  it  is  totally  inapplicable  to 
the  text  in  question,  and  is  in  fact  directly  refuted  by  it. 

But  the  principle  is  false,  and  it  may  be  denied,  that  "  to  ascend  into 
heaven"  is  a  Hebrew  phrase  to  express  the  knowledge  of  high  and 
mysterious  things.  So  utterly  does  this  pretence  fail,  that  not  one  of  the 
passages  they  adduce  in  proof  can  be  taken  in  any  other  than  its  literal 
meaning ;  and  they  are  therefore,  as  are  others,  directly  against  them. 
Deut.  xxx,  11,  is  first  adduced.  "  Who  shall  go  up  for  us  into  heaven, 
and  bring  it  unto  us  ?"  This  we  are  told  we  must  take  figuratively ;  but 
then,  unhappily  for  them,  it  is  also  immediately  subjoined,  "  neither  is 
it  beyond  the  sea,  that  thou  shouldest  say,  who  shall  go  over  the  sea  for 
us  V  If  the  ascent  into  heaven  in  the  first  clause  is  to  be  taken  figura- 
tively, then  the  going  beyond  the  sea  cannot  be  taken  literally,  and  we 
shall  still  want  a  figurative  interpretation  for  this  part  of  the  declaration 
of  Moses  respecting  the  law,  which  will  not  so  easily  be  furnished.  The 
same  observation  is  applicable  to  Romans  x,  6,  in  which  there  is  an 
adaptation  of  the  passage  in  Deuteronomy  to  the  Gospel.  "  Who  shall 
ascend  into  heaven?  that  is,  to  bring  Christ  down  from  above,"  &e, 
words  which  have  no  meaning  unless  place  be  literally  understood,  and 

(7)  "  No  man,  except  myself,  ever  was  in  heaven."  (Pearce.) 


bECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  479 

which  show  that  the  apostle,  a  sufficient  judge  of  Hebrew  modes  of 
exDression,  understood,  in  its  literal  sense,  the  passage  in  Deuteronomy. 
A  second  passage  to  which  they  trust,  is  Prov.  xxx,  4,  "  Who  hath 
ascended  and  descended,"  but  if  what  immediately  follows  be  added, 
"  who  hath  gathered  the  winds  in  his  fists,  who  hath  bound  the  waters 
in  a  garment,"  &c,  it  will  be  seen  that  the  passage  has  no  reference 
to  the  acquisition  of  knowledge  by  a  servant  of  God,  but  expresses  the 
various  operations  in  nature  carried  on  by  God  himself.  "  Who  hath 
done  this  ?  What  is  his  name,  and  what  is  his  son's  name,  if  thou  canst 
tell  ?" 

In  Baruch  iii,  29,  it  is  asked  of  wisdom,  "  Who  hath  gone  up  into 
heaven,  and  taken  her,  and  brought  her  down  from  the  clouds  ?"  but  it 
is  here  also  added,  "  Or  who  hath  gone  over  the  sea  for  her  ?"  Wisdom 
is,  in  this  passage,  clearly  personified ;  a  place  of  habitation  is  assigned 
her,  which  is  to  be  sought  out  by  those  who  would  attain  her.  This 
apocryphal  text,  therefore,  gives  no  countenance  to  the  mystical  notion 
of  ascending  into  heaven,  advanced  by  Socinian  expositors. 

If  they  then  utterly  fail  to  establish  their  forced  and  unnatural  sense 
of  ascending  into  heaven ;  let  us  examine  whether  they  are  more  suc- 
cessful in  establishing  their  opinion  as  to  the  meaning  of  "  coming  down 
from  heaven."  This,  they  say,  means  "  to  be  commissioned  to  reveal 
the  will  of  God  to  men;"  (Belsham's  Calm  Inquiry;)  but  if  so,  the 
phrases,  "  to  ascend  up  into  heaven,"  and  "  to  come  down  from  thence," 
which  are  manifestly  opposed  to  each  other,  lose  all  their  opposition  in 
the  interpretation,  which  is  sufficient  to  show,  that  it  is,  as  to  both, 
entirely  gratuitous,  arbitrary  and  contradictory.  For,  as  Dr.  Magee 
has  acutely  remarked,  "  it  is  observed  by  the  editors  of  the  Unitarian 
Version,  and  enforced  with  much  emphasis  by  Mr.  Belsham  and  Dr. 
Carpenter,  that  to  •  ascend  into  heaven'  signifies  *  to  become  acquainted 
with  the  truths  of  God,'  and  that  consequently  the  « correlative'  to  this, 
(the  opposite  they  should  have  said,)  to  4  descend  from  heaven,'  must 
mean  '  to  bring  and  to  discover  those  truths  to  the  world.'  (Imp.  Vers.  p. 
208  ;  Calm  Inq.  p.  48.)  Now  allowing  those  gentlemen  all  they  wish  to 
establish  as  to  the  first  clause, — that  to  go  up  into  heaven  means  to  learn 
and  become,  acquainted  with  the  counsels  of  God, — what  must  follow  then 
if  they  reasoned  justly  upon  their  own  principles  ?  Plainly  this,  that 
to  come  down  from  heaven,  being  precisely  the  opposite  of  the  former, 
must  mean  to  unlearn,  or  to  lose  the  knowledge  of  those  counsels :  so  that, 
so  far  from  bringing  and  discovering  those  counsels  to  mankind,  our 
Lord  must  have  disqualified  himself  from  bringing  any.  Had  indeed 
1  ascending  into  heaven'  meant  •  bringing  the  truth  (any  where)  feom 
men,'  then  '  descending  from  heaven'  might  justly  be  said  to  mean 
'  bringing  it  back  to  men.'  Whatever,  in  short,  ascending  may  be 
supposed  to  signify  in  any  figure,  descending  must  signify  the  opposite, 


480  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES  [PART 

if  the  figure  be  abided  by :  and  therefore,  if  to  ascend  be  to  learn,  to 
descend  must  be  to  unlearn"   {Discourses  on  the  Atonement.) 

It  is  farther  fatal  to  this  opinion  that  "  if  to  come  from  heaven  ;  to  de- 
scend from  heaven,"  &c,  signify  receiving  a  Divine  commission  to  teach ; 
or,  more  simply  to  communicate  truth  aftei  it  has  been  learned,  it  is  never 
used  with  reference  to  Moses,  or  to  any  of  the  prophets,  or  Divinely 
appointed  instruments  who,  from  time  to  time,  were  raised  up  among  the 
Jews.  We  may  therefore  conclude,  that  the  meaning  attached  to  these 
phrases  by  Socinian  writers  of  the  present  day,  who,  in  this  respect,  as 
in  many  others,  have  ventured  to  step  beyond  their  predecessors  who 
never  denied  their  literal  acceptation,  was  unknown  among  the  Jews, 
and  is  a  mere  subterfuge  to  escape  from  the  plain  testimony  of  Holy 
Writ  on  a  point  so  fatal  to  their  scheme. 

The  next  passage  which  may  be  quoted  as  expressing,  in  unequivocal 
terms,  the  pre-exisetnce  of  Christ,  occurs  John  vi,  62,  and  is,  if  possible, 
still  more  out  of  the  reach  of  that  kind  of  criticism  which  has  just  been 
exhibited.  The  occasion,  too,  fixes  the  sense  beyond  all  perversion. 
Our  Lord  had  told  the  Jews  that  he  was  the  bread  of  life,  which  came 
down  from  heaven.  This  the  Jews  understood  literally,  and  therefore 
asked,  "  Is  not  this  the  son  of  Joseph,  whose  father  and  mother  we  know, 
how  is  it  then  that  he  saith,  J  came  down  from  heaven  ?"  His  disciples 
too  so  understood  his  words,  for  they  also  "  murmured."  But  our  Lord, 
so  far  from  removing  that  impression,  so  far  from  giving  them  the  most 
distant  hint  of  a  mode  of  meeting  the  difficulty  like  that  resorted  to  by 
Socinian  writers,  strengthens  the  assertion,  and  makes  his  profession  a 
stumbling  block  still  more  formidable,  "  Doth  this  offend  you  ?"  referring 
to  what  he  had  just  said,  that  he  had  descended  from  heaven,  "  What 
and  if  ye  shall  see  the  Son  of  man  ascend  up  where  he  was  before." 
Language  cannot  be  more  explicit ;  though  Mr.  Belsham  has  ventured  to 
tell  us  that  this  means,  "  What  if  I  go  farther  out  of  your  reach,  and 
become  more  perplexing  and  mysterious  !"  And  indeed  perplexing  and 
mysterious  enough  would  be  the  words  both  of  Christ  and  his  apostles, 
if  they  required  such  criticisms  for  their  elucidation. 

The  phrase  to  be  "  sent  from  God,"  they  think  they  sufficiently  avert, 
by  urging  that  it  is  said  of  the  Baptist,  "  There  was  a  man  sent  from 
God,  whose  name  was  John."  This,  they  urge,  clearly  evinces,  "  that 
to  come  from  God  is  to  be  commissioned  by  him.  If  Jesus  was  sent 
from  God,  so  was  John  the  Baptist ;  if  the  former  came  down  from 
heaven,  so  did  the  latter."  This  reasoning  must  be  allowed  to  be  falla- 
cious, if  it  can  be  shown  that  it  contradicts  other  scriptures.  Now  our 
Lord  says,  John  vi,  46,  "  No  one  hath  seen  the  Father,  save  he  who  is 
from  God,  he  ovrog,  hath  seen  the  Father ;"  namely,  this  one  person,  for 
it  is  singular,  and  no  one  else  hath  seen  the  Father.  Therefore,  if 
Christ  was  that  person,  as  will  not  be  disputed,  John  could  not  be  "  sent 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  481 

from  God,"  in  the  same  manner  that  Christ  was.  What  does  the  Bap- 
tist say  of  himself?  Does  he  confirm  the  Socinian  gloss?  Speaking 
of  Christ  and  of  himself  he  says,  "  He  that  comethfrom  above  is  above 
all ;  he  that  is  of  tlxe  earth  is  earthly,  he  that  cometh  from  heaven  is 
above  all,"  John  iii,  31.  Here  John  contrasts  his  earthly  origin  with 
Christ's  heavenly  origin.  Christ  is  "from  above;"  John  from  "the 
earth,"  ex  <tv\g  yr^.  Christ  is  "  above  all,"  which  he  could  not  be,  if 
every  other  prophet  came  in  like  manner  from  heaven,  and  from  abova  ; 
and  therefore  if  John  was  "  sent  from  God,"  it  cannot  be  in  the  same 
sense  that  Christ  was  sent  from  him,  which  is  enough  to  silence  the 
objection.  (Holden's  Scripture  Testimonies.)  Thus,  says  Dr.  Nares, 
"  we  have  nothing  but  the  positive  contradictions  of  the  Unitarian  party, 
to  prove  to  us  that  Christ  did  not  come  from  heaven,  though  he  says 
of  himself,  he  did  come  from  heaven ;  that  though  he  declares  he  had 
seen  the  Father,  he  had  not  seen  the  Father ;  that  though  he  assures  us 
that  he,  in  a  most  peculiar  and  singular  manner  came  forth  from  God, 
(ex  <rn  Get  e%r{h&ev,  a  strong  and  singular  expression,)  he  came  from  him 
no  otherwise  than  like  the  prophets  of  old,  and  his  own  immediate  fore- 
runner." (Remarks  on  the  Imp.  Version.) 

Several  other  equally  striking  passages  might  claim  our  attention : 
but  it  will  be  sufficient  for  the  argument,  to  close  it  with  two. 

"  Before  Abraham  was,  I  am,"  John  viii,  59.  Whether  the  verb  etfxt 
"  I  am,"  may  be  understood  to  be  equivalent  to  the  incommunicable 
name  Jehovah,  shall  be  considered  in  another  place.  The  obvious  sense 
of  the  passage  at  least  is,  "  Before  Abraham  was,  or  was  born,  I  was  in 
existence."  Abraham,  the  patriarch,  was  the  person  spoken  of;  for 
the  Jews  having  said,  "  Thou  art  not  yet  fifty  years  old,  and  hast  thou 
seen  Abraham  ?"  our  Lord  declares,  with  his  peculiarly  solemn  mode 
of  introduction,  "  Verily,  verily,  I  say  unto  you,  before  Abraham  wa»,  I 
am."  I  had  priority  of  existence,  "  together  with  a  continuation  of  it  to 
the  present  time."  {Pearson  on  the  Creed.)  Nor  did  the  Jews  mistake 
his  meaning,  but  being  filled  with  indignation  at  so  manifest  a  claim  of 
Divinity,  "  they  took  up  stones  to  stone  him." 

How  then  do  the  Socinians  dispose  of  this  passage  ?  The  two  hypo- 
theses on  which  they  have  rested,  for  one  would  not  suffice,  are,  first, 
"  That  Christ  existed  before  the  patriarch  Abraham  had  become, 
according  to  the  import  of  his  name,  the  father  of  many  nations,  that 
is,  before  the  Gentiles  were  called ;"  which  was  as  true  of  the  Jews 
who  were  discoursing  with  him,  as  of  himself.  The  second  is,  "  before 
Abraham  was  born  I  am  he,  i.  e.  the  Christ,  in  the  destination  and 
appointment  of  God  ;"  which  also  was  saying  nothing  peculiar  of  Christ ; 
since  the  existence  and  the  part  which  every  one  of  his  hearers  was  to 
act,  were  as  much  in  the  destination  and  appointment  of  God  as  his  own. 
Both  these  absurdities  are  well  exposed  by  Bishop  Pearson : — 

Vol.  I.  31 


482  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

"  The  first  interpretation  makes  our  Saviour  thus  to  speak : — Do  ye 
so  much  wonder  how  I  should  have  seen  Abraham,  who  am  not  yet  fifty 
years  old  ?  Do  ye  imagine  so  great  a  contradiction  in  this  ?  I  tell  you, 
and  be  ye  most  assured  that  what  I  speak  unto  you  at  this  time  is  most 
certainly  and  infallibly  true,  and  most  worthy  of  your  observation, 
which  moves  me  not  to  deliver  it  without  this  solemn  asseveration, 
( Verily,  verily,  I  say  unto  you,)  before  Abraham  shall  perfectly  become 
that  which  was  signified  in  his  name,  the  father  of  many  nations,  before 
the  Gentiles  shall  come  in,  J  am.  Nor  be  ye  troubled  at  this  answer, 
or  think  in  this  I  magnify  myself;  for  what  I  speak  is  as  true  of  you 
yourselves  as  it  is  of  me  :  before  Abram  be  thus  made  Abraham,  ye  arc. 
Doubt  ye  not,  therefore,  as  ye  did,  nor  ever  make  that  question  again 
whether  I  have  seen  Abraham.'''' 

"  The  second  explication  makes  a  sense  of  another  nature,  but  with 
the  same  impertinency : — Do  ye  continue  still  to  question,  and  with  so 
much  admiration  do  ye  look  upon  my  age  and  ask,  Hast  thou  seen  Abra- 
ham ?  I  confess  it  is  more  than  eighteen  hundred  years  since  that 
patriarch  died,  and  less  than  forty  since  I  was  born  at  Bethlehem :  but 
look  not  on  this  computation,  for  before  Abraham  was  born  I  was.  But 
mistake  me  not,  I  mean  that  I  was  in  the  foreknowledge  and  decree  of 
God.  Nor  do  I  magnify  myself  in  this,  for  ye  also  were  so.  How 
either  of  these  answers  should  give  any  reasonable  satisfaction  to  the 
question,  or  the  least  occasion  of  the  Jews'  exasperation,  is  not  to  be 
understood.  And  that  our  Saviour  should  speak  of  any  such  imperti- 
nencies  as  these  interpretations  bring  forth,  is  not  by  a  Christian  to  be 
conceived.  Wherefore,  as  the  plain  and  most  obvious  sense  is  a  proper 
and  full  answer  to  the  question,  and  most  likely  to  exasperate  the  unbe- 
lieving Jews  ;  as  those  strained  explications  render  the  words  of  Christ 
not  only  impertinent  to  the  occasion,  but  vain  and  useless  to  the  hearers 
of  them  ;  as  our  Saviour  gave  this  answer  in  words  of  another  language, 
most  probably  incapable  of  any  such  interpretations ;  we  must  adhere 
unto  that  literal  sense  already  delivered,  by  which  it  appeareth  Christ 
had  a  being,  as  before  John,  so  also  before  Abraham,  and  consequently 
by  that  he  did  exist  two  thousand  years  before  he  was  born,  or  con- 
ceived  by  the  virgin."  {Exposition  of  the  Creed.) 

The  observations  of  Whitaker  on  this  decisive  passage,  are  in  his 
usual  energetic  manner  : — 

"  V  Your  Father  Abraham,'  says  our  Saviour  to  the  Jews,  •  rejoiced  to 
see  my  day ;  and  he  saw  it,  and  was  glad.'  Our  Saviour  thus  proposes 
himself  to  his  countrymen,  as  their  Messiah  ;  that  grand  object  of  hope 
and  desire  to  their  fathers,  and  particularly  to  this  first  father  of  the 
faithful,  Abraham.  But  his  countrymen,  not  acknowledging  his  claim 
to  the  character  of  Messiah,  and  therefore  not  allowing  his  supernatural 
priority  of  existence  to  Abraham,  chose  to  consider  his  words  in  a  sig. 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES.  483 

nification  merely  human.  '  Then  said  the  Jews  unto  him,  Thou  art  not 
fifty  years  old,  and  hast  thou  seen  Abraham?'  But  what  does  our 
Saviour  reply  to  this  low  and  and  gross  comment  upon  his  intimation  ? 
Does  he  retract  it,  by  warping  his  language  to  their  poor  perverseness, 
and  so  waiving  his  pretensions  to  the  assumed  dignity  ?  No !  to  have 
so  acted,  would  have  been  derogatory  to  his  dignity,  and  injurious  to 
their  interests.  He  actually  repeats  his  claim  to  the  character.  He 
actually  enforces  his  pretensions  to  a  supernatural  priority  of  existence. 
He  even  heightens  both.  He  mounts  up  far  beyond  Abraham.  He 
ascends  beyond  all  the  orders  of  creation.  And  he  places  himself  with 
God  at  the  head  of  the  universe.  He  thus  arrogates  to  himself  all  that 
high  pitch  of  dignity,  which  the  Jews  expected  their  Messiah  to  assume. 
This  he  does  too  in  the  most  energetic  manner,  that  his  simplicity  of 
language,  so  natural  to  inherent  greatness,  would  possibly  admit.  He 
also  introduces  what  he  says,  with  much  solemnity  in  the  form,  and 
with  more  in  the  repetition.  *  Verily,  verily,  I  say  unto  you,'  he  cries, 
<  before  Abraham  was,  I  am.'  He  says  not  of  himself,  as  he  says 
of  Abraham,  'Before  he  was,  I  was.'  This  indeed  would  have  been 
sufficient,  to  affirm  his  existence  previous  to  Abraham.  But  it  would 
not  have  been  sufficient,  to  declare  what  he  now  meant  to  assert,  his  full 
claim  to  the  majesty  of  the  Messiah.  He  therefore  drops  all  forms  of 
language,  that  could  be  accommodated  to  the  mere  creatures  of  God. 
He  arrests  one,  that  was  appropriate  to  the  Godhead  itself.  '  Before 
Abraham  was,'  or  still  more  properly,  f  Before  Abraham  was  made,'  he 
says,  '  I  am.'  He  thus  gives  himself  the  signature  of  uncreated  and 
continual  existence,  in  direct  opposition  to  contingent  and  created.  He 
says  of  himself 

That  an  eternal  now  for  ever  lasts, 

with  him.  He  attaches  to  himself  that  very  stamp  of  eternity,  which 
God  appropriates  to  his  Godhead  in  the  Old  Testament ;  and  from 
which  an  apostle  afterward  describes  'Jesus  Christ'  expressly,  to  be 
*the  same  yesterday,  and  to-day,  and  for  ever.'  Nor  did  the  Jews  pre- 
tend to  misunderstand  him  now.  They  could  not.  They  heard  him 
directly  and  decisively  vindicating  the  noblest  rights  of  their  Messiah, 
and  the  highest  honours  of  their  God,  to  himself.  They  considered  him 
as  a  mere  pretender  to  those.  They  therefore  looked  upon  him,  as  a 
blasphemous  arrogator  of  these.  '  Then  took  they  up  stones,  to  cast  at 
him'  as  a  blasphemer ;  as  what  indeed  he  was  in  his  pretensions  to  be 
God,  if  he  had  not  been  in  reality  their  Messiah  and  their  God  in  one. 
But  he  instantly  proved  himself  to  their  very  senses,  to  be  both ;  by 
exerting  the  energetic  powers  of  his  Godhead,  upon  them.  For  he  '  hid 
himself;  and  went  out  of  the  temple,  going  through  the  midst  of  them  ; 
and  so  passed  by.'  " 

The  last  passage  which  I  shall  quote,  may  properly,  both  from  its 


484  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

dignity  and  explicitness,  close  the  whole.  John  xvii,  5,  "  And  now,  O 
Father,  glorify  thou  me  with  thine  own  self,  with  the  glory  which  I  had 
with  thee  before  the  world  was."  Whatever  this  glory  was,  it  was  pos- 
sessed by  Christ  before  the  world  was ;  or,  as  he  afterward  expresses 
it,  "  before  the  foundation  of  the  world."  That  question  is  therefore  not 
to  be  confounded  with  the  main  point  which  determines  the  pre-existence 
of  our  Lord  ;  for  if  he  was  with  the  Father,  and  had  a  glory  with  him 
before  the  world  was,  and  of  which  "  he  emptied  himself"  when  he 
became  man,  then  he  had  an  existence,  not  only  before  his  incarnation, 
but  before  the  very  "  foundation  of  the  world."  The  Socinian  gloss  is, 
"  the  glory  which  I  had  with  thee,  in  thy  immutable  decree,  before  the 
world  was ;  or  which  thou  didst  decree,  before  the  world  was,  to  give 
me."  But  v]  £i^ov  ■n'apa  tfoi,  "  which  I  had  with  thee,"  cannot  bear  any 
such  sense.  The  occasion  was  too  peculiar  to  admit  of  any  mystical, 
forced,  or  parabolic  modes  of  speech.  It  was  in  the  hearing  of  his 
disciples,  just  before  he  went  out  into  the  garden,  that  these  words  were 
spoken ;  and,  as  it  has  been  well  observed,  it  is  remarkable,  that  he 
introduces  the  mention  of  this  glory,  when  it  was  not  necessary  to  com- 
plete the  sense  of  any  proposition.  And  yet,  as  if  on  purpose  to  prevent 
the  apostles,  who  heard  his  prayer,  from  supposing  that  he  was  asking 
that  which  he  had  not  possessed  in  any  former  period,  he  adds,  "  with 
the  glory  which  I  had  with  thee  before  the  world  was."  So  decisive  is 
this  passage,  that  as  Dr.  Harwood  says,  "  Were  there  no  intimation  in 
the  whole  New  Testament  of  the  pre-existencc  of  Christ,  this  single 
passage  would  irrefragably  demonstrate  and  establish  it.  Our  Saviour, 
here  in  a  solemn  act  of  devotion,  declares  to  the  Almighty,  that  he  had 
glory  with  him  before  the  world  was,  and  fervently  supplicates  that  he 
would  be  graciously  pleased  to  re-instate  him  in  his  former  felicity. 
The  language  is  plain  and  clear.  Every  word  has  great  moment  and 
emphasis : — '  Glorify  thou  me  with  that  glory  which  I  enjoyed  in  tliy 
presence,  before  the  world  was.''  Upon  this  single  text  I  lay  my  finger. 
Here  I  posit  my  system.  And  if  plain  words  be  designedly  employed 
to  convey  any  determinate  meaning ;  if  the  modes  of  human  speech 
have  any  precision,  I  am  convinced,  that  this  plain  declaration  of  our 
Lord,  in  an  act  of  devotion,  exhibits  a  great  and  important  truth,  which 
can  never  be  subverted  or  invalidated  by  any  accurate  and  satisfactory 
criticism."  {Socinian  Scheme.) 

Whatever,  therefore,  the  true  nature  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  may  be, 
we  have  at  least  discovered  from  the  plainest  possible  testimonies  ;  testi 
monies  which  no  criticism,  and  no  unlicensed  and  paraphrastic  comments 
have  been  able  to  shake  or  to  obscure,  that  he  had  an  existence  previous 
to  his  incarnation,  and  previous  to  the  very  "  foundation  of  the  world.*' 
If  then  we  find  that  the  same  titles  and  works  which  are  ascribed  to 
him  in  the  New  Testament,  are  ascribed  to  a  Divine  person  in  the  Old. 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  485 

who  is  yet  represented  as  distinct  from  God  the  Father,  and  especially 
to  one  who  was  to  come  into  the  world  to  fulfil  the  very  offices  which 
our  Lord  has  actually  fulfilled,  we  shall  have  obtained  another  step  in 
this  inquiry,  and  shall  have  exhibited  lofty  proof,  not  only  of  the  pre- 
existence  of  Christ,  but  also  of  his  Divinity.  This  will  be  the  subject  of 
thn  next  chapter. 


CHAPTER  XL 

Trinity. — Jesus  Christ  the  Jehovah  of  the  Old  Testament. 

.  In  reading  the  Scriptures  of  the  Old  Testament,  it  is  impossible  not 
to  mark  with  serious  attention  the  frequent  visible  appearances  of  God 
to  the  patriarchs  and  prophets  ;  and,  what  is  still  more  singular,  his 
visible  residence  in  a  cloud  of  glory,  both  among  the  Jews  in  the  wilder- 
ness and  in  their  sacred  tabernacle  and  temple. 

The  fact  of  such  appearances  cannot  be  disputed ;  they  are  allowed 
by  all,  and  in  order  to  point  out  the  bearing  of  this  fact  upon  the  point 
at  issue,  the  Divinity  of  Christ,  it  is  necessary, 

1.  To  show  that  the  person  who  made  these  appearances,  was  truly 
a  Divine  person. 

The  proofs  of  this  are,  that  he  bears  the  names  of  Jehovah,  God,  and 
other  Divine  appellations ;  and  that  he  dwelt  among  the  Israelites  as 
the  object  of  their  supreme  worship  ;  the  worship  of  a  people,  the  first 
precept  of  whose  law  was,  "  Thou  shalt  have  no  other  Gods  before 
me."  The  proofs  are  copious,  but  quotations  shall  not  be  needlessly 
multiplied. 

When  the  Angel  of  the  Lord  found  Hagar  in  the  wilderness,  "  she 
called  the  name  of  Jehovah  that  spake  to  her,  Thou  God  seest  me." — 
Jkiiovah  appeared  unto  Abraham  ir.  the  plains  of  Mamre.  Abraham 
lifted  up  his  eyes,  and  three  men,  three  persons  in  human  form,  "  stood 
by  him."  One  of  the  three  is  called  Jehovah.  And  Jehovah  said, 
"  Shall  I  hide  from  Abraham  the  thing  that  I  do  ?"  Two  of  the  three 
depart,  but  he  to  whom  this  high  appellation  is  given  remains,  "  but 
Abraham  stood  yet  before  Jehovah."  This  Jehovah  is  called  by  Abra- 
ham in  the  conversation  which  followed,  "  the  Judge  of  all  the  earth ;" 
and  the  account  of  the  solemn  interview  is  thus  closed  by  the  historian, 
"  the  Lord  (Jehovah)  went  his  way  as  soon  as  he  had  left  off  commun- 
ing with  Abraham."  Appearances  of  the  same  personage  occur  to 
Isaac  and  to  Jacob,  under  the  name  of  "  the  God  of  Abraham,  and  of 
Isaac."  After  one  of  these  manifestations,  Jacob  says,  "  I  have  seen 
God  face  to  face  ;"  and  at  another,  "  Surely  the  Lord  (Jehovah)  is  in 
this  place."  The  same  Jehovah  was  made  visible  to  Moses,  and  gave 
him  his  commission,  and  God  said,  "I  am  that  I  am  ;  thou  shalt  say 


486  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

to  the  children  of  Israel,  I  am  hath  sent  me  unto  you."  The  same 
Jehovah  went  before  the  Israelites  by  day  in  a  pillar  of  cloud,  and  by 
night  in  a  pillar  of  fire  ;  and  by  him  the  law  was  given  amidst  terrible 
displays  of  power  and  majesty  from  Mount  Sinai.  "  I  am  the  Lord 
(Jehovah)  thy  God,  which  have  brought  thee  out  of  the  land  of  Egypt, 
out  of  the  house  of  bondage,  thou  shalt  have  no  other  Gods  before  me, 
&c.  Did  ever  people  hear  the  voice  of  God,  speaking  out  of  the  midst 
of  the  fire  as  thou  hast  heard  and  live  ?"  This  same  personage  com- 
manded the  Israelites  to  build  him  a  sanctuary,  that  he  might  reside 
among  them  ;  and  when  it  was  erected  he  took  possession  of  it  in  a 
visible  form,  which  was  called  "  the  glory  of  the  Lord."  There  the 
Shechinah,  the  visible  token  of  the  presence  of  Jehovah,  rested  above 
the  ark ;  there  he  was  consulted  on  all  occasions,  and  there  he  received 
their  worship  from  age  to  age.  Sacrifices  were  offered ;  sin  was  con- 
fessed  and  pardoned  by  him ;  and  the  book  of  Psalms  is  a  collection  of 
the  hymns  which  were  sung  to  his  honour  in  the  tabernacle  and  temple 
services,  where  he  is  constantly  celebrated  as  Jehovah  the  God  of 
Israel ;  the  "  Jehovah,  God  of  their  fathers  ;"  and  the  object  of  their  own 
exclusive  hope  and  trust :  all  the  works  of  creation  are  in  those  sub- 
lime  compositions  ascribed  to  him  ;  and  he  is  honoured  and  adored  as 
the  governor  of  all  nations,  and  the  sole  ruler  among  the  children  of 
men.  In  a  word,  to  mark  his  Divinity  in  the  strongest  possible  manner, 
all  blessings,  temporal,  spiritual,  and  eternal,  "  light  and  defence,  grace 
and  glory,"  are  sought  at  his  hands. 

Thus  the  same  glorious  being,  bearing  the  appellation  of  Jehovah,  is 
seen  as  the  object  of  the  worship  and  trust  of  ages,  and  that  under  a 
visible  manifestation ;  displaying  attributes,  engaged  in  operations,  and 
assuming  dignities  and  honours,  which  unequivocally  array  him  with  the 
majesty  of  absolute  Divinity. 

To  this  the  objections  which  have  been  made,  admit  of  a  most  satis- 
factory answer. 

The  first  is,  that  this  personage  is  also  called  "  the  Angel  of  the 
Lord."  This  is  true  ;  but  if  that  Angel  of  the  Lord  is  the  same  person 
as  he  who  is  called  Jehovah ;  the  same  as  he  who  gave  the  law  in  his 
oum  name,  then  it  is  clear  that  the  term  "  Angel"  does  not  indicate  a 
created  being,  and  is  a  designation  not  of  nature,  but  of  office,  which 
will  be  just  now  accounted  for,  and  is  not  at  all  inconsistent  with  his 
true  and  proper  Divinity. 

The  collation  of  a  few  passages,  or  of  the  different  parts  of  the  same 
passages  of  Scripture,  will  show  that  Jehovah  and  "  the  Angel  of  the 
Lord,"  when  used  in  this  eminent  sense,  are  the  same  person.  Jacob 
«ays  of  Bethel,  where  he  had  exclaimed,  "  Surely  Jehovah  is  in  this 
place  :"  The  Angel  of  God  appeared  to  me  in  a  dream,  saying,  I  am  the 
God  of  Bethel.     Upon  his  death  bed  he  gives  the  names  of  God  and 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  487 

Angel  to  this  same  person.  "  The  God  which  fed  me  all  my  life  long 
unto  this  day,  the  Angel  which  redeemed  me  from  all  evil,  bless  the 
lads.'  So  in  Hosea,  xii,  2,  5,  it  is  said,  "  By  his  strength  he  had  power 
with  God,  yea  he  had  power  over  the  Angel  and  prevailed."  "  We 
found  him  in  Bethel,  and  there  he  spake  with  us,  even  the  Lord  God  of 
hosts,  the  Lord  is  his  memorial."  Here  the  same  person  has  the 
names  God,  Angel,  and  Lord  God  of  hosts.  "  The  Angel  of  the  Lord 
called  to  Abraham  a  second  time  from  heaven,  and  said,  by  myself  have 
I  sworn  saith  the  Lord,  (Jehovah,)  that  since  thou  hast  done  this  thing, 
in  blessing  I  will  bless  thee."  The  Angel  of  the  Lord  appeared  to 
Moses  in  a  flame  of  fire ;  but  this  same  Angel  of  the  Lord  "  called  to 
him  out  of  the  bush,  and  said,  I  am  the  God  of  thy  fathers,  the  God  of 
Abraham,  the  God  of  Isaac,  and  the  God  of  Jacob,  and  Moses  hid  his 
face,  for  he  was  afraid  to  look  upon  God."  To  omit  many  other  pas- 
sages,  St.  Stephen,  in  alluding  to  this  part  of  the  history  of  Moses,  in  his 
speech  before,  the  council,  says,  "  There  appeared  to  Moses  in  the 
wilderness  of  Mount  Sinai,  An  angel  of  the  Lord  in  a  flame  of  fire," 
showing  that  that  phraseology  was  in  use  among  the  Jews  in  his  day, 
and  that  this  Angel  and  Jehovah  were  regarded  as  the  same  being,  for 
he  adds,  "  Moses  was  in  the  Church  in  the  wilderness  with  the  Angel 
which  spoke  unto  him  in  Mount  Sinai."  There  is  one  part  of  the  his- 
tory of  the  Jews  in  the  wilderness,  which  so  fully  shows  that  they  dis- 
tinguished this  Angel  of  Jehovah  from  all  created  angels,  as  to  deserve 
particular  attention.  In  Exodus  xxiii,  20,  God  makes  this  promise  to 
Moses  and  the  Israelites,  "  Behold  I  send  an  Angel  before  thee  to  keep 
thee  in  the  wa) ,  and  to  bring  thee  into  the  place  which  I  have  prepared ; 
beware  of  him,  and  obey  his  voice,  provoke  him  not ;  for  he  will  not 
pardon  your  transgressions,  for  my  name  is  in  him."  Of  this  Angel 
let  it  be  observed,  that  he  is  here  represented  as  the  guide  and  protector 
of  the  Israelites  ;  to  him  they  were  to  owe  their  conquests  and  their 
settlement  in  the  promised  land,  which  are  in  other  places  often  attribu- 
ted to  the  immediate  agency  of  God — that  they  are  cautioned  to  "  beware 
of  him,"  to  reverence  and  stand  in  dread  of  him — that  the  pardoning  of 
transgressions  belongs  to  him — finally,  "  that  the  name  of  God  was  in 
him."  This  name  must  be  understood  of  God's  own  peculiar  name, 
Jehovah,  I  am,  which  he  assumed  as  his  distinctive  appellation  at  his 
first  appearing  to  Moses  ;  and  as  the  names  of  God  are  indicative  of  his 
nature,  he  who  had  a  right  to  bear  the  peculiar  name  of  God,  must  also 
have  his  essence.  This  view  is  put  beyond  all  doubt  by  the  fact,  that 
Moses  and  the  Jews  so  understood  the  promise  ;  for  afterward  when 
their  sins  had  provoked  God  to  threaten  not  to  go  up  with  them  himself 
but  to  commit  them  to  "  an  Angel  who  should  drive  out  the  Canaanite, 
&c,"  the  people  mourned  over  this  as  a  great  calamity,  and  Moses  be- 
took himself  to  special  intercession,  and  rested  not  until  he  obtained  the 


488  THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES.  [PART 

repeal  of  the  threat,  and  the  renewed  promise,  *  my  presence  shall  go 
with  thee  and  I  will  give  thee  rest."  Nothing,  therefore,  can  be  more 
clear  than  that  Moses  and  the  Israelites  considered  the  promise  of  the 
Angel,  in  whom  was  "  the  name  of  God,"  as  a  promise  that  God  him- 
self would  go  with  them.  With  this  uncreated  Angel,  this  presence  of 
the  Lord,  they  were  satisfied,  but  not  with  "  an  angel"  indefinitely,  with 
an  angel,  not  so  by  office  only,  as  was  the  appearing  Angel  of  the  Old 
Testament,  but  who  was  by  nature  of  that  order  of  beings  usually  so 
called,  and  therefore  a  created  being.  At  the  news  of  God's  determi- 
nation not  to  go  up  with  them,  Moses  hastens  to  the  tabernacle  to  make 
his  intercessions,  and  refusess  an  inferior  conductor.  "  If  thy  presence 
go  not  with  me,  carry  us  not  up  hence."  (8) 

That  the  Angel  of  Jehovah  is  constantly  represented  as  Jehovah  him- 
self, and  therefore  as  a  Divine  person,  is  so  manifest,  that  the  means  re- 
sorted to,  to  evade  the  force  of  the  argument  which  so  immediately  flashes 
from  it,  acknowledge  the  fact.  Those  who  deny  the  Divinity  of  our 
Lord,  however,  endeavour  to  elude  the  consequence  according  to  their 
respective  creeds.  The  Arians,  who  think  the  appearing  angel  to  have 
been  Christ,  but  who  yet  deny  him  to  be  Jehovah  himself,  assume  that 
this  glorious  but  created  being  personated  the  Deity,  and  as  his  ambas- 
sador and  representative  spoke  by  his  authority,  and  took  his  name. 
Thus  a  modern  Arian  observes,  "  The  Angel  takes  the  name  of  Jehovah 
because  it  is  a  common  maxim,  loquitur  legatus  sermone  mittentis  eum, 
as  an  ambassador  in  the  name  of  his  king,  or  the  fecialis  when  he  de- 
nounced war  in  the  name  of  the  Roman  people ;  and  what  is  done  by 
the  Angel  is  said  to  be  done  by  God,  according  to  another  maxim,  qui 
facit  per  alium,  facit  per  se."  (Taylor,  Ben  Mordecai.)  The  answer  to 
this  is,  that  though  ambassadors  speak  in  the  name  of  their  masters, 
they  do  not  apply  the  names  and  titles  of  their  masters  to  themselves, 

(8)  From  this  remarkable  passage  it  appears  to  me  very  clear,  that  the  Mes- 
senger or  Angel  of  God,  whom  he  here  promises  to  be  the  leader  of  his  people, 
is  not  a  creature,  much  less  Moses  or  Joshua,  but  an  uncreated  Angel.  For 
(1)  the  clause,  He  will  not  pardon  your  sins,  is  not  applicable  to  any  created  be- 
ing, whether  Angel  or  man :  (2)  The  next  words,  My  name  is  in  him,  cannot  be 
explained  to  signify,  he  shall  act  in  my  name,  that  is,  under  my  command  or  by 
authority  received  from  me,  for  in  that  case  another  word,  he  will  act  or  he  will 
speak,  or  the  like  would  have  been  added:  (3)  The  same  conclusion  is  establish- 
ed by  a  comparison  of  this  passage  with  chapter  xxxii,  34,  (and  xxxii,  2,)  where 
God  expresses  his  indignation  against  the  Israelites  for  their  idolatry,  by  declaring 
that  not  himself,  but  an  angel,  should  bo  henceforth  their  guide  :  but  this,  the 
people  and  Moses  most  earnestly  deprecate  [as  a  calamity  and  a  judgment, 
whereas  the  present  instance  is  a  promise  of  favour  and  mercy,  and  is  so  acknow- 
ledged in  Isaiah  lxii,  8.]  "That  angel,  therefore,  is  perfectly  different  from  him 
who  is  spoken  of  in  this  passage  before  us,  who  is  the  same  that  appeared  to 
Moses,  chapter  iii,  2,  and  there  likewise  both  speaks  and  acts  as  God  himself." 
(Dathii  Pentateuchus.) 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES.  489 

(9) — that  the  unquestionably  created  angels,  mentioned  in  Scripture  as  ap- 
pearing to  men,  declare  that  they  were  sent  by  God,  and  never  personate 
him, — that  the  prophets  uniformly  declare  their  commission  to  be  from 
God, — that  God  himself  declares,  "  Jehovah  is  my  name,  and  my  glory 
will  I  not  give  to  another," — and  yet  that  the  appearing  Angel  calls  him. 
self,  as  we  have  seen,  by  this  incommunicable  name  in  almost  innume- 
rable instances,  and  that  though  the  object  of  the  Mosaic  dispensation 
was  to  preserve  men  from  idolatry,  yet  this  Angel  claims  and  receives 
the  exclusive  worship  both  of  the  patriarchs  to  whom  he  occasionally 
appeared,  and  the  Jews  among  whom  he  visibly  resided  for  ages.  It  is 
therefore  a  proposition  too  monstrous  to  be  for  a  moment  sustained,  that 
a  created  being  of  any  kind  should  thus  allure  men  into  idolatry,  by  act- 
ing the  Deity,  assuming  his  name,  and  attributing  to  himself  God's  pe- 
culiar and  incommunicable  perfections  and  honour.  (1)  The  Arian 
hypothesis  on  this  subject  is  well  answered  by  even  a  Socinian  writer. 
"  The  whole  transaction  on  Mount  Sinai  shows  that  Jehovah  was  pre- 
sent, and  acted,  and  not  another  for  him.  It  is  the  God  that  had  de- 
livered them  out  of  Egypt,  with  whom  they  were  to  enter  into  covenant 
as  their  God,  and  who  thereupon  accepted  them  as  his  people,  who  was 
the  author  of  their  religion  and  laws,  and  who  himself  delivered  to  them 
those  ten  commands,  the  most  sacred  part.  There  is  nothing  to  lead 
us  to  imagine  that  the  person,  who  was  their  God,  did  not  speak  in  his 
own  name  ;  not  the  least  intimation  that  here  was  another  representing 
him."  {Lindsey's  Apology.) 

The  author  of  "  the  Essay  on  Spirit"  attempts  to  meet  this  by  alleg- 
ing that  "  the  Hebrews  were  far  from  being  explicit  and  accurate  in  their 
style,  and  that  it  was  customary  for  prophets  and  angels  to  speak  in  the 
name  and  character  of  God."  The  reply  of  Dr.  Randolph  is  able  and 
decisive,  and  as  this  is  a  point  of  great  importance,  its  introduction  will 
not  appear  unnecessary. 

"  Some,  to  evade  these  strong  proofs  of  our  Lord's  Divinity,  have  as- 
serted that  this  was  only  a  created  angel  appearing  in  the  name  or  person 
of  the  Father ;  it  being  customary  in  Scripture  for  one  person  to  sustain 
the  character,  and  act  and  speak  in  the  name  of  another.  But  these 
assertions  want  proof.  I  find  no  instances  of  one  person  acting  and 
speaking  in  the  name  of  another,  without  first  declaring  in  whose  name 

(9)  "  An  earthly  ambassador  indeed  represents  the  person  of  his  prince,  is  sup. 
posed  to  be  clothed  with  his  authority,  and  speaks  and  acts  in  his  name.  But 
who  ever  heard  of  an  ambassador  assuming  the  very  name  of  his  sovereign,  or 
being  honoured  with  it  by  others  ?  Would  one  in  this  character  be  permitted  to 
say,  /  George,  I  Louis,  I  Frederic  ?  As  the  idea  is  ridiculous,  the  action  would 
justly  be  accounted  high  treason."  (Jamieson's  Vindication.) 

(1)  histrioniam  exercuisse,  in  qua  Dei  nomen  assumat,  et  omnia.  qu» 

Dei  sunt,  sibi  attribuat.  (Bishop  Bull  > 


490  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

he  acts  and  speaks.  The  instances  usually  alleged  are  nothing  to  the 
purpose.  If  we  sometimes  find  an  angel  in  the  book  of  Revelation 
speaking  in  the  name  of  God,  yet  from  the  context  it  will  be  easy  to 
show  that  this  angel  was  the  great  Angel,  the  Angel  of  the  Covenant. 
But  if  there  should  be  some  instances,  in  the  poetical  or  prophetical  parts 
of  Scripture,  of  an  abrupt  change  of  persons,  where  the  person  speaking 
is  not  particularly  specified,  this  will  by  no  means  come  up  to  the  case 
before  us.  Here  is  a  person  sustaining  the  name  and  character  of  the 
most  high  God,  from  one  end  of  the  Bible  to  the  other ;  bearing  his  glo. 
rious  and  fearful  name,  the  incommunicable  name  Jehovah,  expressive 
of  his  necessary  existence  ;  sitting  in  the  throne  of  God ;  dwelling  and 
presiding  in  his  temple  ;  delivering  laws  in  his  name ;  giving  out  oracles  ; 
hearing  prayers  ;  forgiving  sins.  And  yet  these  writers  would  persuade 
us  that,  this  was  only  a  tutelary  angel;  that  a  creature  was  the  God  of 
Israel,  and  that  to  this  creature  all  their  service  and  worship  was  directed; 
that  the  great  God,  !  whose  name  is  Jealous,'  was  pleased  to  give  his 
glory,  his  worship,  his  throne  to  a  creature.  What  is  this  but  to  make 
the  law  of  God  himself  introductory  of  the  same  idolatry  that  was  prac- 
tised by  all  the  nations  of  the  heathen  ?  But  we  are  told  that  bold  figures 
of  speech  are  common  in  the  Hebrew  language,  which  is  not  to  be  tied 
down  in  its  interpretation  to  the  severer  rules  of  modern  criticism.  We 
may  be  assured  that  these  opinions  are  indefensible,  which  cannot  be 
supported  without  charging  the  word  of  God  with  want  of  propriety  or 
perspicuity.  Such  pretences  might  be  borne  with,  if  the  question  were 
about  a  phrase  or  two  in  the  poetical  or  prophetical  parts  of  Scripture. 
But  this,  if  it  be  a  figure,  is  a  figure  which  runs  through  the  whole 
Scripture.  And  a  bold  interpreter  must  he  be,  who  supposes  that  such 
figures  are  perpetually  and  uniformly  made  use  of  in  a  point  of  such 
importance,  without  any  meaning  at  all.  This  is  to  confound  the  use 
a>f  language,  to  make  the  Holy  Scripture  a  mysterious  unintelligible  book, 
sufficient  to  prove  nothing,  or  rather  to  prove  any  thing,  which  a  wild 
imagination  shall  suggest."  (Randolph's  Vindication  of  the  Doctrine  of 
the  Trinity.) 

If  the  Arian  account  of  the  Angel  of  Jehovah  be  untenable,  the  So- 
cinian  notion  will  be  found  equally  unsupported,  and  indeed  ridiculous. 
Dr.  Priestley  assumes  the  marvellous  doctrine  of  "  occasional  person- 
ality," and  thinks  that  "  in  some  cases  angels  were  nothing  more  than 
temporary  appearances,  and  no  permanent  beings ;  the  mere  organs  of 
the  Deity,  assumed  for  the  purpose  of  making  himself  known."  He 
speaks  therefore  of  "  a  power  occasionally  emitted,  and  then  taken  back 
again  into  its  source  ;"  of  this  power  being  vested  with  a  temporary  per. 
sonality,  and  thinks  this  possible  !  Little  cause  had  the  doctor  and  his 
adherents  to  talk  of  the  mystery  and  absurdity  of  the  doctrine  of  three 
persons  in  one  Godhead,  who  can  make  a  person  out  of  a  power,  emitted 


SECONO.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  491 

and  then  drawn  back  again  to  its  source  ;  a  temporary  person,  without 
individual  subsistence  !  The  wildness  of  this  fiction  is  its  own  refutation  ; 
but  that  the  Angel  of  Jehovah  was  not  this  temporary  occasional  person, 
produced  or  "  emitted"  for  the  occasion  of  these  appearances,  is  made 
certain  by  Abraham's  "  walking  before  this  Angel  of  the  Lord,"  that  is, 
ordering  his  life  and  conversation  in  his  sight  all  the  days  of  his  life ;  by 
Jacob  calling  him  the  Angel  of  the  Lord  who  had  "  fed  him  all  his  life 
long ;"  and  by  this  also,  that  the  same  person  who  was  called  by  him- 
self  and  by  the  Jews  "  the  God  of  Abraham,  of  Isaac,  and  of  Jacob," 
was  the  God  of  the  chosen  people  in  all  their  generations.  Mr.  Lindsey 
says  "  that  the  outward  token  of  the  presence  of  God  is  what  is  generally 
meant  by  the  Angel  of  God,  when  not  particularly  specified  and  appro- 
priated  otherwise ;  that  which  manifested  his  appearance,  whatever  it 
was  ;"  and  this  opinion  commonly  obtains  among  the  Socinians.  "The 
Angel  of  the  Lord  was  the  visible  symbol  of  the  Divine  presence." 
(Belsham.)  This  notion,  however,  involves  a  whole  train  of  absurdities. 
The  term,  the  "  Angel  of  Jehovah"  is  not  at  all  accounted  for  by  a 
visible  symbol  of  clouds,  light,  fire,  &c,  unless  that  symbol  be  considered 
as  distinct  from  Jehovah.  We  have  then  the  name  Jehovah  given  to 
a  cloud,  a  light,  a  fire,  &c ;  the  fire  is  the  Angel  of  the  Lord,  and  yet 
the  Angel  of  the  Lord  calls  to  Moses  out  of  the  f  re.  This  visible  symbol 
says  to  Abraham,  "  By  myself  I  have  sworn,"  for  these  are  said  to  be 
the  words  of  the  Angel  of  Jehovah;  and  this  Angel,  the  visible  symbol, 
spake  to  Moses  on  Mount  Sinai :  such  are  the  absurdities  which  flow 
from  error !  Most  clearly  therefore  is  it  determined  on  the  testimony  of 
several  scriptures,  and  by  necessary  induction  from  the  circumstances 
attending  the  numerous  appearances  of  the  Angel  of  Jehovah  in  the  Old 
Testament,  that  the  person  thus  manifesting  himself,  and  thus  receiving 
supreme  worship,  was  not  a  created  angel  as  the  Arians  would  have  it, 
nor  a  meteor,  an  atmospheric  appearance,  the  worthy  theory  of  modern 
Socinians,  but  that  he  was  a  Divine  person. 

2.  It  will  be  necessary  to  show  that  this  Divine  person  was  not  God 
the  Father. 

The  following  argument  has  been  adopted  in  proof  of  this  :  "No  man 
hath  seen  God  at  any  time.  Ye  have  neither  heard  his  voice  at  any 
time  nor  seen  his  shape.  Not  that  any  man  hath  seen  the  Father.  It 
is  however  said  in  the  Old  Testament,  that  God  frequently  appeared 
under  the  patriarchal  and  Levitical  dispensations,  and  therefore  we  must 
conclude  that  the  God  who  appeared  was  God  the  Son." 

Plausible  as  this  argument  is,  it  cannot  he  depended  upon ;  for  that 
the  Father  never  manifested  himself  to  men,  as  distinct  from  the  Son,  is 
contradicted  by  two  express  testimonies.  We  have  seen  that  the  Angel, 
in  whom  was  the  name  of  God,  promised  as  the  conductor  of  the  Israel. 
ites  through  the  wilderness,  was  a  Divine  person.     But  he  who  promised 


492  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [rART 

to  "  send  him,"  must  be  a  different  person  to  the  angel  sent,  and  that 
person  could  be  no  other  than  the  Father.  "  Behold,  I  send  an  angel 
before  thee,"  &c.  On  this  occasion,  therefore,  Moses  heard  the  voice 
of  the  Father.  Again,  at  the  baptism  of  Jesus  the  voice  of  the  Father 
was  heard,  declaring,  "This  is  my  beloved  Son,  in  whom  I  am  well 
pleased."  The  above  passages  must  be  therefore  interpreted  to  accord 
with  these  facts.  They  express  the  pure  spirituality  and  invisibility  of 
God,  and  can  no  more  be  argued  against  a  sensible  manifestation  of 
God  by  audible  sounds,  and  appearances,  than  the  declaration  to  Moses, 
"No  man  can  see  my  face  and  live."  There  was  an  important  sense 
in  which  Moses  neither  did  nor  could  see  God ;  and  yet  it  is  equally 
true,  that  he  both  saw  him  and  heard  him.  He  saw  the  "  backward 
parts,"  but  not  the  "face  of  God."  (2) 

The  manifestation  of  the  Father  was  however  very  rare ;  as  appears 
from  by  far  the  greater  part  of  these  Divine  appearances  being  expressly 
called  appearances  of  the  Angel  of  the  Lord.  The  Jehovah  who  ap- 
peared to  Abram  in  the  case  of  Sodom  was  an  angel.  The  Jehovah 
who  appeared  to  Hagar,  is  said  also  to  be  "  the  Angel  of  the  Lord."  It 
was  H  the  Angel  of  Jehovah  from  heaven"  who  sware  by  himself  to 
Abraham,  "  In  blessing  I  will  bless  thee."  Jacob  calls  the  "  God  of 
Bethel,"  that  is,  the  God  who  appeared  to  him  there,  and  to  whom  he 
vowed  his  vows,  "  the  Angel  of  God."  In  blessing  Joseph,  he  calls  the 
God  "  in  whose  presence  my  fathers,  Abraham  and  Isaac  have  walked," 
the  Angel  who  had  redeemed  him  from  all  evil.  "  I  am  that  I  am," 
when  he  spoke  to  Moses  out  of  the  bush,  is  termed  the  Angel  of  Jehovah. 
The  God  who  spake  these  words  and  said,  "  Thou  shalt  have  no  other 
gods  before  me,"  is  called  the  Angel  who  spake  to  Moses  in  the  Mount 
Sinai.  The  Being  who  dwelt  in  a  fiery  cloud,  the  visible  token  of  the 
presence  of  God,  and  took  up  his  residence  over  the  ark,  in  the  holiest 
place,  and  there  received  the  constant  worship  of  the  Jews,  is  called 
the  Angel  of  the  Lord ;  and  so  in  many  other  instances. 

Nor  is  there  any  reason  for  stretching  the  point  to  exclude  in  all  case/ 
the  visible  or  audible  agency  of  the  Father,  from  the  Old  Testament ; 
no  advantage  in  the  least  is  gained  by  it,  and  it  cannot  be  mai  xained 
without  sanctioning  by  example  the  conduct  of  the  opposers  of  a  uth,  in 
giving  forced  and  unnatural  expositions  to  several  passages  of  Scripture. 
This  ought  to  be  avoided,  and  a  consistency  of  fair  honest  interpretation 
be  maintained  throughout.  It  is  amply  sufficient  for  the  important  argu- 
ment with  which  we  are  now  concerned,  to  prove,  not  that  the  Father 
was  never  manifested  in  his  own  person ;  but  that  the  Angel  of  the 
Lord,  whose  appearances  are  so  often  recorded,  is  not  the  Father.  This 
:8  clear  from  his  appellation  angel,  with  respect  to  which  there  can  be 

&)  Imporscrutabilem  Dsi  essentiam  et  majestatem.  (Vatable.) 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL     INSTITUTES.  493 

but  two  interpretations.  It  is  either  a  name  descriptive  of  nature  or  of 
office.  In  the  first  view  it  is  generally  employed  in  the  sacred  Scrip- 
tures to  designate  one  of  an  order  of  intelligences  superior  to  man,  and 
often  employed  in  the  service  of  man  as  the  ministers  of  God,  but  still 
beings^tm/e  and  created.  We  have  however  already  proved  that  the 
Angel  of  the  Lord  is  not  a  creature,  and  he  is  not  therefore  called  an 
angel  with  reference  to  his  nature.  The  term  must  then  be  considered 
as  a  term  of  office.  He  is  called  the  Angel  of  the  Lord,  because  he  was 
the  messenger  of  the  Lord  ;  because  he  was  sent  to  execute  his  will,  and 
to  be  his  visible  image  and  representative.  His  office  therefore  under 
this  appellation  was  ministerial ;  but  ministration  is  never  attributed  to 
the  Father.  He  who  was  sent  must  be  a  distinct  person  from  him  by 
whom  he  was  sent ;  the  messenger  from  him  whose  message  he  brought, 
and  whose  will  he  performed.  The  Angel  of  Jehovah  is  therefore  a 
different  person  from  the  Jehovah  whose  messenger  he  was,  and  yet  the 
Angel  himself  is  Jehovah,  and,  as  we  have  proved,  truly  Divine.  Thus 
does  the  Old  Testament  most  clearly  reveal  to  us,  in  the  case  of  Jehovah 
and  the  Angel  of  Jehovah,  two  Divine  persons,  while  it  still  maintains  its 
great  fundamental  principle,  that  there  is  but  one  God. 

3.  The  third  step  in  this  argument  is,  that  the  Divine  person,  called 
so  often  the  Angel  of  Jehovah  in  the  Old  Testament,  was  the  promised 
and  future  Christ,  and  consequently  Jesus,  the  Lord  and  Saviour  of  the 
Christian  Church. 

We  have  seen,  that  it  was  the  Angel  of  Jehovah  who  gave  the  law  to 
the  Israelites,  and  that  in  his  own  name,  though  still  an  angel,  a  messenger 
in  the  transaction  ;  being  at  once  servant  and  Lord,  angel  and  Jehovah, 
circumstances  which  can  only  be  explained  on  the  hypothesis  of  his 
Divinity,  and  for  which  neither  Arianism  nor  Socinianism  can  give  any 
solution.  He  therefore  was  the  person  who  made  the  covenant,  usually 
called  the  Mosaic,  with  the  children  of  Israel.  The  Prophet  Jeremiah 
however  expressly  says,  that  the  new  covenant  with  Israel  was  to  be 
made  by  the  same  person  who  had  made  the  old.  "  Behold,  the  days 
come,  saith  the  Lord,  that  I  will  make  a  new  covenant  with  the  house 
of  Israel  and  with  the  house  of  Judah ;  not  according  to  the  covenant 
that  J  made  with  their  fathers  in  the  day  that  I  took  them  by  the  hand 
to  bring  them  out  of  the  land  of  Egypt."  The  Angel  of  Jehovah,  who 
led  the  Israelites  out  of  Egypt  and  gave  them  their  law,  is  here  plainly 
introduced  as  the  author  of  the  new  covenant.  If  then,  as  we  learn  from 
the  Apostle  Paul,  this  new  covenant  predicted  by  Jeremiah  is  the  Chris- 
tian dispensation,  and  Christ  be  its  author ;  the  Christ  of  the  New 
Testament,  and  the  Angel  of  Jehovah  of  the  Old,  are  the  same 
person. 

Equally  striking  is  the  celebrated  prediction  in  Malachi,  the  last  of 
the  prophets.    "  Behold  I  will  send  my  messenger,  and  he  shall  prepare 


494  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  T^ART 

my  way  before  me ;  and  the  Lord  whom  ye  seek  shall  suddenly  come 
to  his  temple,  even  the  messenger  of  the  covenant  whom  ye  delight  in ; 
behold,  he  shall  come,  saith  the  Lord  of  hosts." 

The  characters  under  which  the  person  who  is  the  subject  of  this 
prophecy  is  described,  are,  the  Lord,  a  sovereign  Ruler,  (3)  the  owner 
of  the  temple,  and  therefore  a  Divine  prince  or  governor,  he  "  shall 
come  to  his  temple."  "  The  temple,"  says  Bishop  Horsley,  "  in  the 
writings  of  a  Jewish  prophet,  cannot  be  otherwise  understood,  according 
to  the  literal  meaning,  than  of  the  temple  at  Jerusalem.  Of  this  temple, 
therefore,  the  person  to  come  is  here  expressly  called  the  Lord.  The 
lord  of  any  temple,  in  the  language  of  all  writers,  and  in  the  natural 
meaning  of  the  phrase,  is  the  divinity  to  whose  worship  it  is  consecrated. 
To  no  other  divinity  the  temple  of  Jerusalem  was  consecrated  than  the 
true  and  everlasting  God,  the  Lord  Jehovah,  the  Maker  of  heaven  and 
earth.  Here,  then,  we  have  the  express  testimony  of  Malachi,  that  the 
Christ,  the  Deliverer,  whose  coming  he  announces,  was  no  other  than 
the  Jehovah  of  the  Old  Testament.  Jehovah  had  delivered  the  Israelites 
from  the  Egyptian  bondage ;  and  the  same  Jehovah  was  to  come  in 
person  to  his  temple,  to  effect  the  greater  and  more  general  deliverance 
of  which  the  former  was  but  an  imperfect  type." 

He  bears  also  the  same  title,  angel  or  messenger,  as  he  whose  ap- 
pearances in  the  Old  Testament  have  been  enumerated. 

"  The  Messenger  of  the  Covenant,  therefore,  is  Jehovah's  messenger ; 
— if  his  messenger,  his  servant ;  for  a  message  is  a  service  :  it  implies 
a  person  sending,  and  a  person  sent.  In  the  person  who  sendeth  there 
must  be  authority  to  send, — submission  to  that  authority  in  the  person 
sent.  The  Messenger,  therefore,  of  the  Covenant,  is  the  servant  of  the 
Lord  Jehovah :  but  the  same  person  who  is  the  Messenger,  is  the  Lord 
Jehovah  himself,  not  the  same  person  with  the  sender,  but  bearing  the 
same  name;  because  united  in  that  mysterious  nature  and  undivided 
substance  which  the  name  imports.  The  same  person,  therefore,  is 
servant  and  Lord  ;  and,  by  uniting  these  characters  in  the  same  person, 
what  does  the  prophet  but  describe  that  great  mystery  of  the  Gospel,  the 
union  of  the  nature  which  governs,  and  the  nature  which  serves, — the 
union  of  the  Divine  and  human  nature  in  the  person  of  the  Christ  ?" 
(Horsley' s  Sermons.) 

Now  this  prophecy  is  expressly  applied  to  Christ  by  St.  Mark. — 
"  The  beginning  of  the  Gospel  of  Jesus  Christ,  the  Son  of  God,  as  it  is 
written,  Behold,  I  send  my  messenger  before  thy  face,  which  shall  pre- 
pare  thy  way  before  thee."  It  follows  from  this,  that  Jesus  is  the  Lord, 
the  Lord  of  the  temple,  the  Messenger  of  the  Covenant  mentioned  in 

(3)  The  same  word  is  often  applied  to  magistrates,  and  even  fathers ;  but  J 
H.  Michaelis  says,  that  when  it  occurs  as  in  this  place  with  the  prefix,  it  is  ap- 
propriated only  to  God. 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  495 

the  prophecy ;  and  bearing  these  exact  characters  of  the  appearing 
Angel  Jehovah  of  the  Old  Testament,  who  was  the  King  of  the  Jews ; 
whose  temple  was  his,  because  he  resided  in  it,  and  so  was  called  "  the 
house  of  the  Lord  ;"  and  who  was  "  the  Messenger"  of  their  Covenant ; 
the  identity  of  the  persons  cannot  be  mistaken.  One  coincidence  is 
singularly  striking.  It  has  been  proved  that  the  Angel  Jehovah  had  his 
residence  in  the  Jewish  tahernacle  and  temple,  and  that  he  took  posses- 
sion, or  came  suddenly  to  both,  at  their  dedication,  and  filled  them  with 
his  glory.  On  one  occasion  Jesus  himself,  though  in  his  state  of  humili- 
ation, comes  in  public  procession  to  the  temple  at  Jerusalem,  and  calls 
it  "  his  own,"  thus  at  once  declaring  that  he  was  the  ancient  and  rightful 
Lord  of  the  temple,  and  appropriating  to  himself  this  eminent  prophecy. 
Bishop  Horsley  has  introduced  this  circumstance  in  his  usual  striking 
and  convincing  manner : — 

"  A  third  time  Jesus  came  still  more  remarkably  as  the  Lord  to  his 
temple,  when  he  came  up  from  Galilee  to  celebrate  the  last  passover, 
and  made  that  public  entry  at  Jerusalem  which  is  described  by  all  the 
evangelists.  It  will  be  necessary  to  enlarge  upon  the  particulars  of  this 
interesting  story :  for  the  right  understanding  of  our  Saviour's  conduct 
upon  this  occasion  depends  so  much  upon  seeing  certain  leading  circum- 
stances in  a  proper  light, — upon  a  recollection  of  ancient  prophecies, 
and  an  attention  to  the  customs  of  the  Jewish  people, — that  I  am  apt  to 
suspect,  few  now-a-days  discern  in  this  extraordinary  transaction  what 
was  clearly  seen  in  it  at  the  time  by  our  Lord's  disciples,  and  in  some 
measure  understood  by  his  enemies.  I  shall  present  you  with  an  orderly 
detail  of  the  story,  and  comment  upon  the  particulars  as  they  arise  :  and 
I  doubt  not  but  that  by  God's  assistance  I  shall  teach  you  to  perceive  in 
this  public  entry  of  Jesus  of  Nazareth,  (if  you  have  not  perceived  it 
before,)  a  conspicuous  advent  of  the  great  Jehovah  to  his  temple. — 
Jesus,  on  his  last  journey  from  Galilee  to  Jerusalem,  stops  at  the  foot 
of  Mount  Olivet,  and  sends  two  of  his  disciples  to  a  neighbouring  village 
to  provide  an  ass's  colt  to  convey  him  from  that  place  to  the  city,  dis- 
tant not  more  than  half  a  mile.  The  colt  is  brought,  and  Jesus  is  seated 
upon  it.  This  first  circumstance  must  be  well  considered  ;  it  is  the  key 
to  the  whole  mystery  of  the  story.  What  could  be  his  meaning  in 
choosing  this  singular  conveyance  ?  It  could  not  be  that  the  fatigue  of 
the  short  journey  which  remained  was  likely  to  be  too  much  for  him 
afoot ;  and  that  no  better  animal  was  to  be  procured.  Nor  was  the 
ass  in  these  days  (though  it  had  been  in  earlier  ages  an  animal  in  high 
esteem  in  the  east)  used  for  travelling  or  for  state  by  persons  of  the  first 
condition, — that  this  conveyance  should  be  chosen  for  the  grandeur  or 
propriety  of  the  appearance.  Strange  as  it  may  seem,  the  coming  to 
Jerusalem  upon  an  ass's  colt  was  one  of  the  prophetical  characters  of 
the  Messiah ;  and  the  great  singularity  of  it  had  perhaps  been  the  reason 


496  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

that  this  character  had  been  more  generally  attended  to  than  any  other  : 
so  that  there  was  no  Jew  who  was  not  apprized  that  the  Messiah  was  to 
come  to  the  holy  city  in  that  manner.  <  Rejoice  greatly,  O  daughter 
of  Zion  !  shout,  O  daughter  of  Jerusalem !'  saith  Zechariah  ;  <  Behold, 
thy  King  cometh  unto  thee  !  He  is  just,  and  having  salvation  ;  lowly, 
and  riding  upon  an  ass,  even  a  colt,  the  foal  of  an  ass  !'  And  this  pro. 
phecy  the  Jews  never  understood  of  any  other  person  than  the  Messiah. 
Jesus,  therefore,  by  seating  himself  upon  the  ass's  colt  in  order  to  go  to 
Jerusalem,  without  any  possible  inducement  either  of  grandeur  or  con- 
venience, openly  declared  himself  to  be  that  King  who  was  to  come,  and 
at  whose  coming  in  that  manner  Zion  was  to  rejoice.  And  so  the  dis- 
ciples, if  we  may  judge  from  what  immediately  followed,  understood 
this  proceeding  ;  for  no  sooner  did  they  see  their  master  seated  on  the 
colt,  than  they  broke  out  into  transports  of  the  highest  joy,  as  if  in  this 
great  sight  they  had  the  full  contentment  of  their  utmost  wishes ;  con- 
ceiving, as  it  should  seem,  the  sanguine  hope  that  the  kingdom  was  this 
instant  to  be  restored  to  Israel.  They  strewed  the  way  which  Jesus 
was  to  pass  with  the  green  branches  of  the  trees  which  grew  beside  it ; 
a  mark  of  honour  in  the  east,  never  paid  but  to  the  greatest  emperors 
on  occasions  of  the  highest  pomp.  They  proclaimed  him  the  long- 
expected  heir  of  David's  throne, — the  Blessed  One  coming  in  the  name 
of  the  Lord  ;  that  is,  in  the  language  of  Malachi,  the  Messenger  of  the 
Covenant :  and  they  rent  the  skies  with  the  exulting  exclamation  of 
•  Hosanna  in  the  highest !'  On  their  way  to  Jerusalem,  they  are  met 
by  a  great  multitude  from  the  city,  whom  the  tidings  had  no  sooner 
reached  than  they  ran  out  in  eager  joy  to  join  his  triumph.  When  they 
reached  Jerusalem,  *  the  whole  city,'  says  the  blessed  evangelist,  '  was 
moved.'  Here  recollect,  that  it  was  now  the  season  of  the  passover. 
The  passover  was  the  highest  festival  of  the  Jewish  nation,  the  anni- 
versary of  that  memorable  night  when  Jehovah  led  his  armies  out  of 
Egypt  with  a  high  hand  and  an  extended  arm, — '  a  night  much  to  be 
remembered  to  the  Lord  of  the  children  of  Israel  in  their  generations  ;' 
and  much  indeed  it  was  remembered.  The  devout  Jews  flocked  at  this 
season  to  Jerusalem,  not  only  from  every  corner  of  Judea,  but  from  the 
remotest  countries  whither  God  had  scattered  them ;  and  the  numbers 
of  the  strangers  that  were  annually  collected  in  Jerusalem  during  this 
festival  are  beyond  imagination.  These  strangers,  who  living  at  a  dis- 
tance knew  little  of  what  had  been  passing  in  Judea  since  their  last  visit, 
were  they  who  were  moved  (as  well  they  might  be)  with  wonder  and 
astonishment,  when  Jesus,  so  humble  in  his  equipage,  so  honoured  in  his 
numerous  attendants,  appeared  within  the  city  gates;  and  every  one 
asks  his  neighbour,  '  Who  is  this  ?'  It  was  replied  by  some  of  the 
natives  of  Judea, — but  as  I  conceive,  by  none  of  the  disciples ;  for  any 
of  them  at  this  time  would  have  given  another  answer, — it  was  replied, 


SBCOND.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  497 

'  This  is  the  Nazarene,  the  great  prophet  from  Galilee.'  Through  the 
throng  of  these  astonished  spectators  the  procession  passed  by  the 
public  streets  of  Jerusalem  to  the  temple,  where  immediately  the  sacred 
porticoes  resound  with  the  continued  hosannas  of  the  multitudes.  The 
chief  priests  and  scribes  are  astonished  and  alarmed  :  they  request  Jesus 
himself  to  silence  his  followers.  Jesus,  in  the  early  part  of  his  ministry, 
had  always  been  cautious  of  any  public  display  of  personal  consequence ; 
lest  the  malice  of  his  enemies  should  be  too  soon  provoked,  or  the  un- 
advised zeal  of  his  friends  should  raise  civil  commotions.  But  now 
that  his  work  on  earth  was  finished  in  all  but  the  last  painful  part  of  it,. 
— now  that  he  had  firmly  laid  the  foundations  of  God's  kingdom  in  the 
hearts  of  his  disciples, — now  that  the  apostles  were  prepared  and 
instructed  for  their  office, — now  that  the  days  of  vengeance  on  the 
Jewish  nation  were  at  hand,  and  it  mattered  not  how  soon  they  should 
incur  the  displeasure  of  the  Romans  their  masters, — Jesus  lays  aside  a 
reserve  which  could  be  no  longer  useful ;  and,  instead  of  checking  the 
zeal  of  his  followers,  he  gives  a  new  alarm  to  the  chief  priests  and 
scribes,  by  a  direct  and  firm  assertion  of  his  right  to  the  honours  that 
were  so  largely  shown  to  him.  *  If  these,'  says  he,  '  were  silent,  the 
stones  of  this  building  would  be  endued  with  a  voice  to  proclaim  my 
titles :'  and  then,  as  on  a  former  occasion,  he  drove  out  the  traders ;  but 
with  a  higher  tone  of  authority,  calling  it  his  own  house,  and  saying, 
1  My  house  is  the  house  of  prayer,  but  ye  have  made  it  a  den  of  thieves.' 
You  have  now  the  story,  in  all  its  circumstances,  faithfully  collected 
from  the  four  evangelists ;  nothing  exaggerated,  but  set  in  order,  and 
perhaps  somewhat  illustrated  by  an  application  of  old  prophecies,  and  a 
recollection  of  Jewish  customs.  Judge  for  yourselves  whether  this  was 
not  an  advent  of  the  Lord  Jehovah  taking  personal  possession  of  his 
temple."  {Horsley.) 

But  it  is  not  only  in  these  passages  that  the  name  Jehovah,  the  appel- 
lation of  the  appearing  Angel  of  the  Old  Testament,  and  other  titles  of 
Divinity,  are  given  to  Messiah  ;  and  if  Jesus  be  Messiah,  then  are  they 
his  titles  and  as  truly  mark  his  Divinity. 

"  The  voice  of  him  that  crieth  in  the  wilderness,  Prepare  ye  the  way 
of  the  Lord,  (Jehovah,)  make  straight  in  the  desert  a  high  way  for  our 
God.  Every  valley  shall  be  exalted,  and  every  mountain  shall  be 
made  low ;  and  the  crooked  shall  be  made  straight,  and  the  rough 
places  plain,  and  the  glory  of  the  Lord  (Jehovah)  shall  be  revealed, 
and  all  flesh  shall  see  it  together."  This  being  spoken  of  him  of 
whom  John  the  Baptist  was  to  be  the  forerunner ;  and  the  application 
having  been  afterward  expressly  made  by  the  Baptist  to  our  Lord,  it  is 
evident  that  he  is  the  person  "to  whom  the  prophet  attributes  the 
incommunicable  name  of  Jehovah,  and  styles  him  '  our  God.' " — 
(Wogan.) 

Vol.  I.  32 


498  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

"  Now  all  this  was  done  that  it  might  be  fulfilled  which  was  spoken 
of  the  Lord  by  the  prophet,  saying,  Behold  a  virgin  shall  conceive,  and 
shall  bring  forth  a  Son,  and  they  shall  call  his  name  Emanuel,  which 
being  interpreted  is  God  with  us."  Here  another  prediction  of  Isaiah 
is  expressly  applied  to  Jesus.  "  Thou  shalt  bring  forth  a  son,  and  shalt 
call  his  name  Jesus,  and  he  shall  be  great,  and  the  Lord  God  shall  give 
to  him  the  throne  of  his  father  David,  and  he  shall  reign  over  the  house 
of  Jacob  for  ever  and  ever,  and  of  his  kingdom  there  shall  be  no  end." 
These  are  the  words  of  the  angel  to  Mary,  and  obviously  apply  to  our 
Lord  the  words  of  Isaiah,  "  Unto  us  a  child  is  born,  unto  us  a  son  is 
given,  and  the  government  shall  be  upon  his  shoulder,  and  his  name 
shall  be  called  Wonderful,  Counsellor,  the  mighty  God,  the  everlasting 
Father,  the  Prince  of  Peace.  Of  the  increase  of  his  government  and 
power  there  shall  be  no  end,  upon  the  throne  of  David  to  order  and 
establish  it  for  ever."  It  is  unnecessary  at  present  to  quote  more  of 
those  numerous  passages  which  speak  of  the  future  Messiah  under 
Divine  titles,  and  which  are  applied  to  Jesus  as  that  Messiah  actually 
manifested.  They  do  not  in  so  many  words  connect  the  Angel  of 
Jehovah  with  Jesus  as  the  same  person ;  but,  taken  with  the  passages 
above  adduced,  they  present  evidence  of  a  very  weighty  character  in 
favour  of  that  position.  A  plurality  of  persons  in  the  one  Godhead  is 
mentioned  in  the  Jewish  Scriptures ;  this  plurality  is  restricted  to 
three;  one  of  them  appears  as  the  "  acting  God"  of  the  patriarchal  and 
Mosaic  age ;  the  prophets  speak  of  a  Divine  person  to  come  as  the 
Messiah,  bearing  precisely  the  same  titles  ;  no  one  supposes  this  to  be 
the  Holy  Ghost ;  it  cannot  be  the  Father,  seeing  that  Messiah  is  God's 
servant  and  God's  messenger  ;  and  the  only  conclusion  is,  that  the 
Messiah  predicted  is  he  who  is  known  under  the  titles,  Angel,  Son  of 
God,  Word  of  God,  in  the  Old  Testament ;  and  if  Jesus  be  that  Mes- 
siah, he  is  that  Son,  that  Word,  that  Servant,  that  Messenger ;  and  bear- 
ing the  same  Divine  characters  as  the  Angel  of  Jehovah,  is  that  Angel 
himself,  and  is  entitled  in  the  Christian  Church  to  all  the  homage  and 
worship  which  was  paid  to  him  in  the  Jewish. 

There  are,  however,  a  few  passages  which  in  a  still  more  distinct 
manner  than  any  which  have  been  introduced,  except  that  from  the 
prophecy  of  Jeremiah,  identify  Jesus  Christ  with  the  Angel  of  Jehovah 
in  the  patriarchal  and  Levitical  dispensations  ;  and  a  brief  consideration 
of  them  will  leave  this  important  point  completely  established. 

Let  it  then  be  recollected,  that  he  who  dwelt  in  the  Jewish  taberna- 
cle, between  the  cherubim,  was  the  Angel  Jehovah.  In  Psalm  lxviii, 
which  was  written  on  the  removal  of  the  ark  to  Mount  Zion,  he  is 
expressly  addressed.  "This  is  the  hill  which  God  desireth  to  dwell 
in  ;"  and  again,  "  They  have  seen  thy  goings,  O  God,  my  King,  in  thy 
sanctuary."     But  the  Apostle  Paul,  Eph.  iv,  8,  applies  this  psalm  to 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES  490 

Christ,  and  considers  this  very  ascent  of  the  Angel  Jehovah  to  Mount 
Zion  as  a  prophetic  type  of  the  ascent  of  Jesus  to  the  celestial  Zion. — 
"  Wherefore  he  saith,  when  he  ascended  on  high,  he  led  captivity 
captive,"  &c.  The  conclusion,  therefore,  is,  that  the  Angel  Jehovah 
who  is  addressed  in  the  psalm,  and  Christ,  are  the  same  person.  This 
is  marked  with  equal  strength  in  verse  29.  The  psalm,  let  it  be 
observed,  is  determined  by  apostolical  authority  to  be  a  prophecy  of 
Christ,  as  indeed  its- terms  intimate ;  and  with  reference  to  the  future 
conquests  of  Messiah,  the  prophet  exclaims,  "  Because  of  thy  temple  at 
Jerusalem  shall  kings  bring  presents  unto  thee."  The  future  Christ  is 
spoken  of  as  one  having  then  a  temple  at  Jerusalem. 

It  was  the  glory  of  the  Angel  Jehovah,  the  resident  God  of  the 
temple,  which  Isaiah  saw  in  the  vision  recorded  in  the  sixth  chapter 
of  his  prophecy  before  adduced;  but  the  Evangelist  John  expressly 
declares  that  on  that  occasion  the  prophet  saw  the  glory  of  Christ  and 
spake  of  him.  Christ  therefore  was  the  Lord  of  hosts  whose  glory 
filled  the  temple. 

St.  Peter  calls  the  Spirit  of  Jehovah,  by  which  the  prophets  "  prophe- 
sied of  the  grace  that  should  come,  the  Spirit  of  Christ."  He  also 
informs  us  that  "  Christ  was  put  to  death  in  the  flesh,  but  quickened  by 
the  Spirit,  by  which  also  he  went  and  preached  unto  the  spirits  in 
prison,  which  sometime  were  disobedient  when  once  the  long  suffering 
of  God  waited  in  the  days  of  Noah,  while  the  ark  was  preparing." — 
Now  whatever  may  be  the  full  meaning  of  this  difficult  passage,  Christ 
is  clearly  represented  as  preaching  by  his  Spirit  in  the  days  of  Noah, 
that  is,  inspiring  Noah  to  preach.  Let  this  be  collated  with  the  decla- 
ration of  Jehovah  before  the  flood,  "  My  Spirit  shall  not  always  strive 
with  man,  for  that  he  is  flesh,  yet  his  days  shall  be  a  hundred  and 
twenty  years,"  during  which  period  of  delay  and  long  suffering,  Noah 
was  made  by  him,  from  whom  alone  inspiration  can  come,  a  preacher 
of  righteousness  ;  and  it  is  clear  that  Christ,  -and  the  appearing  Jehovah 
of  the  antediluvian  world,  are  supposed  by  St.  Peter  to  have  been  the 
same  person.  In  the  eleventh  chapter  of  the  Hebrews,  Moses  is  said 
to  have  esteemed  the  reproach  of  Christ  greater  riches  than  the  trea- 
sures of  Egypt;  a  passage  of  easy  interpretation,  when  it  is  admitted 
that  the  Jehovah  of  the  Israelites,  whose  name  and  worship  Moses  pro- 
fessed, and  Christ,  were  the  same  person.  For  this  worship  he  was 
reproached  by  the  Egyptians,  who  preferred  their  own  idolatry,  and 
treated,  as  all  apostates  do,  the  true  religion,  the  pure  worship  of  former 
ages  from  which  they  had  departed,  with  contempt.  To  be  reproached 
for  the  sake  of  Jehovah,  and  to  be  reproached  for  Christ,  were  conver- 
tible phrases  with  the  apostle,  because  he  considered  Jehovah  and  Christ 
to  be  the  same  person. 

u  In  St.  Paul's  First  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians,  we  read,  •  Neither  let 


500  THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES.  [PART 

us  tempt  Christ,  as  some  of  them  (that  is,  the  Jews  in  the  wilderness) 
also  tempted,  and  were  destroyed  by  serpents,'  x,  9.  The  pronoun 
him  auTov,  must  be  understood  after  '  tempted,'  and  it  is  found  in  some 
MSS.,  though  not  sufficiently  numerous  to  warrant  its  insertion  in  the 
text.  It  is,  however,  necessarily  implied,  and  refers  to  Christ  just 
before  mentioned.  The  Jews  in  the  wilderness  here  are  said  to  have 
tempted  some  person ;  and  to  understand  by  that  person  any  other  than 
Christ,  who  is  just  before  named,  is  against  all  grammar,  which  never 
allows  without  absolute  necessity  any  other  accusative  to  be  understood 
by  the  verb  than  that  of  some  person  or  thing  before  mentioned  in  the 
same  sentence.  The  conjunction  xeu,  also  establishes  this  interpretation 
beyond  doubt :  '  Neither  let  us  tempt  Christ  as  'some  of  them  also 
tempted' — tempted  whom?  The  answer  clearly  is,  as  they  also 
tempted  Christ.  If  Christ  then  was  the  person  whom  the  Israelites 
tempted  in  the  wilderness,  he  unavoidably  becomes  the  Jehovah  of  the 
Old  Testament."  (4) 

This  is  rendered  the  more  striking,  when  the  passage  to  which  the 
apostle  refers  is  given  at  length.  "  Ye  shall  not  tempt  the  Lord  your 
God,  as  ye  tempted  him  in  Massah."  Now  what  could  lead  the  apos- 
tle to  substitute  Christ,  in  the  place  of  the  Lord  your  God  ?  "  Neither 
let  us  tempt  Christ,  as  some  of  them  also  tempted"  Christ,  for  that  is 
the  accusative  which  must  be  supplied.  Nothing  certainly  but  that  the 
idea  was  familiar  to  him,  that  Christ,  and  the  Angel  Jehovah,  who  con- 
ducted and  governed  the  Israelites,  were  the  same  person. 

Heb.  xii,  25,  26  :  "  See  that  ye  refuse  not  him  that  speaketh  ;  for  if 
they  escaped  not  who  refused  him  that  spake  on  earth,  much  more  shall 
not  we  escape,  if  we  turn  away  from  him  that  speaketh  from  heaven. 
Whose  voice  then  shook  the  earth,  but  now  he  hath  promised,"  &c. 

This  passage  also  is  decisive  as  a  proof  that  the  Angel  of  Jehovah, 
and  our  Lord,  are  the  same  person.  "  Him  that  speaketh  from  heaven," 
the  context  determines  to  be  Christ ;  "  him  that  spake  on  earth,"  is  pro- 
bably Moses.  The  "  voice"  that  then  "  shook  the  earth,"  was  the  voice 
of  him  that  gave  the  law,  at  the  sound  of  which  the  mountain  trembled 
and  shook.  He  who  gave  the  law  we  have  already  proved,  from  the 
authority  of  Scripture,  to  have  been  the  Angel  of  Jehovah,  and  the 
apostle  declares  that  the  same  person  now  speaks  to  us  "  from  heaven," 
in  the  Gospel,  and  is  therefore  the  Lord  Christ.  Dr.  Mac  Knight  says, 
that  it  was  not  the  Son's  voice  which  shook  the  earth,  because  it  was 
not  the  Son  who  gave  the  law.  In  this  he  is  clearly  contradicted  by 
St.  Stephen,  and  the  whole  Jewish  history.     The  proto-martyr  in  his 

(4)  Holden's  Testimonies.  See  this  text,  so  fatal  to  the  Socinian  scheme, 
triumphantly  established  against  the  liberty  of  their  criticisms,  in  Dr.  Magee's 
Postscript  to  Appendix,  p.  211,  &c. 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  501 

defence,  expressly  says,  that  it  was  "  the  Angel"  who  spake  with  Moses 
in  the  mount ;  and  here  the  Apostle  Paul  declares,  that  it  was  the  voice 
of  Christ  which  then  shook  the  earth.  Nothing  can  more  certainly 
prove  than  this  collation  of  Scriptures,  that  the  Son  gave  the  law,  and 
that  "  the  Angel"  who  spake  to  Moses,  and  Christ,  are  the  same 
person. 

The  above  passage,  in  its  necessary  grammatical  construction,  so 
certainly  marks  out  Christ  as  the  person  whose  voice  shook  the  earth 
at  the  giving  of  the  law,  that  the  Socinians,  in  their  New  Version  of  the 
Testament,  have  chosen  to  get  rid  of  a  testimony  which  no  criticism 
could  evade,  by  daringly  and  wilfully  corrupting  the  text  itself,  and 
without  any  authority  whatever,  they  read,  instead  of  **  See  that  ye 
refuse  not  him  that  speaketh,"  "  See  that  ye  refuse  not  God  that  speak- 
eth ;"  thus  introducing  a  new  antecedent.  This  instance  of  a  wilful 
perversion  of  the  very  text  of  the  word  of  God,  has  received  its  merited 
reprobation  from  those  eminent  critics  who  have  exposed  the  dishonesties, 
the  ignorance,  and  the  licentious  criticisms,  of  what  is  called  an  "  Im- 
proved Version"  of  the  New  Testament. 

These  views  are  confirmed  by  the  testimonies  of  the  early  fathers,  to 
whom  the  opinions  of  the  apostles,  on  this  aubjecr,  (one  not  at  all  affected 
by  the  controversies  of  the  day,)  would  naturally  descend.  The  opinions 
of  the  ancient  Jews,  which  are  also  decidedly  confirmatory,  will  be  given 
in  their  proper  place.  . 

Justin  Martyr  has  delivered  his  sentiments  very  freely  upon  the  Divine 
appearances.  "  Our  Christ,"  he  says,  "  conversed  with  Moses  out  of 
the  bush,  in  the  appearance  of  fire.  And  Moses  received  great  strength 
from  Christ,  who  spake  to  him  in  the  appearance  of  fire."  Again : — 
"The  Jews  are  justly  reproved,  for  imagining  that  the  Father  of  all 
things  spake  to  Moses,  when  indeed  it  was  the  Son  of  God,  who  is  called 
the  Angel  and  the  Messenger  of  the  Father.  He  formerly  appeared  in 
the  form  of  fire,  and  without  a  human  shape,  to  Moses  and  the  other 
prophets  :  but  now — being  made  a  man  of  the  virgin,"  &c. 

Irenaeus  says,  "  The  Scripture  is  full  of  the  Son  of  God's  appearing : 
sometimes  to  talk  and  eat  with  Abraham,  at  other  times  to  instruct  Noah 
about  the  measures  of  the  ark ;  at  another  time  to  seek  Adam  ;  at  an- 
other time  to  bring  down  judgment  upon  Sodom;  then  again,  to  direct 
Jacob  in  the  way ;  and  again,  to  converse  with  Moses  out  of  the  bush." 
Tertullian  says,  "  It  was  the  Son  who  judged  men  from  the  beginning, 
destroying  that  lofty  tower,  and  confounding  their  languages,  punishing 
the  whole  world  with  a  flood  of  waters,  and  raining  fire  and  brimstone 
upon  Sodom  and  Gomorrah,  the  Lord  pouring  it  down  from  the  Lord: 
for  he  always  descended  to  hold  converse  with  men,  from  Adam  even  to 
the  patriarchs  and  prophets,  in  visions,  in  dreams,  in  mirrors,  in  dark 
sentences,  always  preparing  his  way  from  the  beginning :  neither  was  it 


502  THEOLOGICAL     INSTITUTES.  [PART 

possible,  that  the  God  who  conversed  with  men  upon  earth,  could  be  any 
other  than  that  Word  which  was  to  be  made  flesh." 

Clemens  Alexandrinus  says,  "  The  Pedagogus  appeared  to  Abraham, 
to  Jacob,  wrestled  with  him,  and  lastly,  manifested  himself  to  Moses." 
Again :  "  Christ  gave  the  world  the  law  of  nature,  and  the  written  law 
of  Moses.  Wherefore,  the  Lord  deriving  from  one  fountain  both  the 
first  and  second  precepts  which  he  gave,  neither  overlooked  those  who 
were  before  the  law,  so  as  to  leave  them  without  law,  nor  suffered  those 
who  minded  not  the  philosophy  of  the  barbarians  to  do  as  they  pleased. 
He  gave  to  the  one  precepts,  to  the  other  philosophy,  and  concluded 
them  in  unbelief  till  his  coming,  when,  whosoever  believes  not  i3  with- 
out excuse." 

Origen  says,  "  My  Lord  Jesus  Christ  descended  to  the  earth  more 
than  once.  He  came  down  to  Esaias,  to  Moses,  and  to  every  one  of  the 
prophets."  Again : — "  That  our  blessed  Saviour  did  sometimes  become 
as  an  angel,  we  may  be  induced  to  believe,  if  we  consider  the  appear- 
ances and  speeches  of  angels,  who  in  some  texts  have  said,  *  I  am  the 
God  of  Abraham,  and  the  God  of  Isaac,' "  &c. 

Theophilus  of  Antioch  also  declares,  "  that  it  was  the  Son  of  God 
who  appeared  to  Adam  immediately  after  the  fall,  who,  assuming  the 
person  of  the  Father  and  the  Lord  of  all,  came  in  paradise  under  the 
person  of  God,  and  conversed  with  Adam." 

The  synod  of  Antioch  : — "  The  Son,"  say  they,  "  is  sometimes  called 
an  Angel,  and  sometimes  the  Lord  ;  sometimes  God.  For  it  is  impious 
to  imagine,  that  the  God  of  the  universe  is  any  where  called  an  angel. 
But  the  Messenger  of  the  Father  is  the  Son,  who  himself  is  Lord  and 
God :  for  it  is  written,  The  Angel  of  the  great  council" 

Cyprian  observes,  that  "  the  Angel  who  appeared  to  the  patriarch  is 
Christ  and  God."  And  this  he  confirms  by  producing  a  number  of  those 
passages  from  the  Old  Testament,  where  it  is  said,  that  an  Angel  of  the 
Lord  appeared  and  spake  in  the  name  of  God. 

Hilary  speaks  to  the  same  purpose : — "  He  who  is  called  the  Angel 
of  God,  the  same  is  Lord  and  God.  For  the  Son  of  God,  according  to 
the  prophet,  is  the  Angel  of  the  great  council.  That  the  distinction  of 
persons  might  be  entire,  he  is  called  the  Angel  of  God ;  for  he  who  is 
God  of  God,  the  same  also  is  the  Angel  (or  Messenger)  of  God ;  and 
yet,  at  the  same  time,  that  due  honour  might  be  paid,  he  is  also  called 
Lord  and  God." 

St.  Basil  says,  "  Who  then  is  it  that  is  called  both  an  angel  and  God  ? 
Is  it  not  He,  whose  name,  we  are  told,  is  called  the  Angel  of  the  great 
Covenant  ?  For  though  it  was  in  aftertimes  that  he  became  the  Angel 
of  the  great  Covenant,  yet  even  before  that,  he  did  not  disdain  the  title 
of  an  Angel,  or  Messenger."  Again  : — "  It  is  manifest  to  every  one, 
that  where  the  same  person  is  styled  both  an  Angel  and  God,  it  must  be 


ECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES  505 

meant  of  the  only  begotten,  who  manifests  himself  to  mankind  in  different 
generations,  and  declares  the  will  of  the  Father  to  his  saints.  Where- 
fore, he  who,  at  his  appearing  to  Moses,  called  himself  I  am,  cannot  be 
conceived  to  be  any  other  person  than  God,  the  Word  who  was  in  tJte 
beginning  with  God." 

Other  authorities  may  be  seen  in  Waterland's  Defence  of  Queries, 
that  decidedly  refutes  Dr.  Samuel  Clarke,  who  pretends,  in  order  to 
cover  his  Arianism,  that  the  fathers  represent  the  angel  as  speaking  in 
the  person  of  the  Father. 

Two  objections  to  this  doctrine,  taken  from  the  Scriptures,  are 
answered  without  difficulty.  "  God,  who  at  sundry  times,  and  in  divers 
manners,  spake  in  time  past  unto  the  fathers  by  the  prophets,  hath  in 
these  last  days  spoken  unto  us  by  his  Son."  To  those  only  who  deny 
the  manifestation  and  agency  of  the  Father  in  every  case  in  the  Old 
Testament,  this  passage  presents  a  difficulty.  God  the  Father  is  cer- 
tainly meant  by  the  apostle,  and  he  is  said  to  have  spoken  by  the  pro- 
phets. But  this  is  no  difficulty  to  those  who,  though  they  contend  that 
the  ordinary  appearances  of  the  Deity  were  those  of  the  Son,  yet  allow 
the  occasional  manifestation  of  the  Father.  He  is  the  fountain  of  inspi- 
ration. The  Son  is  sent  by  the  Father,  but  the  Spirit  is  sent  by  the 
Father  and  by  the  Son.  This  is  the  order  in  the  New  Testament,  and 
also,  as  many  passages  show  in  the  Old.  The  Spirit  sent  by  the  Father, 
qualified  the  prophets  to  speak  unto  "  our  fathers."  The  apostle,  how- 
ever, says  nothing  more  than  that  there  was  an  agency  of  the  Father  in 
sending  the  prophets,  which  does  not  exclude  that  of  the  Son  also  ;  for 
the  opposition  lies  in  the  outward  visible  and  standing  means  of  convey- 
ing the  knowledge  of  the  will  of  God  to  men,  which  under  the  law  was 
by  mere  men,  though  prophets ;  under  the  Gospel,  by  the  incarnate 
Son.  Communication  by  prophets  under  the  law,  did  not  exclude  other 
communications  by  the  Son  in  his  Divine  character ;  and  communica- 
tion by  the  Son  under  the  Gospel,  does  not  exclude  other  communica- 
tions by  apostles,  evangelists,  and  Christian  prophet's.  The  text  is  not 
therefore  an  exclusive  proposition  either  way.  It  is  not  clear,  indeed, 
that  any  direct  opposition  at  all  is  intended  in  the  text,  but  a  simple 
declaration  of  the  equal  authority  of  both  dispensations,  and  the  peculiar 
glory  of  the  latter,  whose  human  minister  and  revealer  was  the  Son  of 
God  in  our  nature. 

The  second  objection  rests  upon  a  passage  in  the  same  epistle.  "  If 
the  word  spoken  by  angels  was  steadfast,  and  every  transgression  and 
disobedience  received  a  just  recompense  of  reward,  how  shall  we  escape 
if  we  neglect  so  great  salvation,  which  at  first  began  to  be  spoken  by 
the  Lord?"  To  understand  this  passage,  it  is  to  be  noted,  that  the 
apostle  refers  to  the  judicial  law  of  Moses,  which  had  its  prescribed 
penalty  for  every  "  transgression  and  disobedience."   Now  this  law  was 


504  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

not,  like  the  decalogue,  spoken  by  God  himself,  but  by  angels.  For 
after  the  voice  of  God  had  spoken  the  ten  commandments,  the  people 
entreated  that  God  would  not  speak  to  them  any  more.  Accordingly, 
Moses  says,  Deut.  v,  22,  "These  words,"  the  decalogue,  "the  Lord 
spake  unto  all  your  assembly  in  the  mount,  out  of  the  midst  of  the  fire, 
with  a  great  voice,  and  he  added  no  more,  and  he  wrote  them  in  two 
tables  of  stone,  and  delivered  them  unto  me."  The  rest,  "  both  the 
judicial  and  the  ceremonial  law,  was  delivered,  and  the  covenant  was 
made,  by  the  mediation  of  Moses :  and  therefore  the  apostle  says,  Gal. 
iii,  19,  'The  law  was  ordained  by  angels  in  the  hand  of  a  mediator:' 
hence  it  is  called  the  law  of  Moses.  And  the  character  given  of  it  in 
the  Pentateuch  is  this, — these  are  the  statutes,  and  judgments,  and  laws, 
which  the  Lord  made  between  him  and  the  children  of  Israel  in  Mount 
Sinai,  by  the  hand  of  Moses."  (Randolph  Prcel.  Theolog.) 

Nor  does  the  apostle's  argument  respect  the  autnor  of  the  law,  for  no 
one  can  suppose  that  angels  .were  its  authors,  nor  the  giver  of  the  law, 
for  angels  have  no  such  authority ;  but  the  medium  through  which  it  was 
communicated,  or  "  spoken."  In  the  case  of  the  decalogue,  that 
medium  was  the  Lord,  the  Angel  Jehovah  himself  in  majesty ;  but  in 
the  body  of  judicial  and  ceremonial  laws,  to  which  he  clearly  refers, 
angels  and  Moses.  The  visible  medium  by  which  the  Gospel  was  com- 
municated, was  the  Son  of  God  made  flesh.  That  word  was  "  spoken 
by  the  Lord,"  not  only  in  his  personal,  but  in  his  mediatorial  character ; 
and,  by  that  wonderful  condescension,  its  importance,  and  the  danger 
of  neglecting  it,  were  marked  in  the  most  eminent  and  impressive 
manner. 

It  has  now  therefore  been  established  that  the  Angel  Jehovah,  and 
Jesus  Christ  our  Lord,  are  the  same  person ;  and  this  is  the  first  great 
argument  by  which  his  Divinity  is  established.  He  not  only  existed 
before  his  incarnation,  but  is  seen  at  the  head  of  the  religious  institutions 
of  his  own  Church,  up  to  the  earliest  ages.  We  trace  the  manifesta- 
tions of  the  same  person  from  Adam  to  Abraham ;  from  Abraham  to 
Moses ;  from  Moses  to  the  prophets ;  from  the  prophets  to  Jesus. 
Under  every  manifestation  he  has  appeared  in  the  form  of  God,  never 
thinking  it  robbery  to  be  equal  with  God.  "  Dressed  in  the  appropriate 
robes  of  God's  state,  wearing  God's  crown,  and  wielding  God's  sceptre," 
he  has  ever  received  Divine  homage  and  honour.  No  name  is  given  to 
the  Angel  Jehovah,  which  is  not  given  to  Jehovah  Jesus ;  no  attribute 
is  ascribed  to  the  one,  which  is  not  ascribed  to  the  other;  the  worship 
which  was  paid  to  the  one  by  patriarchs  and  prophets,  was  paid  to  the 
other  by  evangelists  and  apostles ;  and  the  Scriptures  declare  them  to 
be  the  same  august  person, — the  image  of  the  Invisible,  whom  no  man 
can  see  and  live  ; — the  Redeeming  Angel,  the  Redeeming  Kinsman,  and 
the  Redeeming  God. 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  505 

That  the  titles  with  which  our  Lord  is  invested  are  unequivocal  decla- 
rations of  absolute  Divinity,  will  be  the  subject  of  the  next  chapter 


CHAPTER  XII. 

The  Titles  of  Christ. 

Various  proofs  were  adduced,  in  the  last  chapter,  that  the  visible 
Jehovah  of  the  Old  Testament  is  to  be  regarded  as  a  Being  distinct 
from  the  Father,  yet  having  Divine  titles  ascribed  to  him,  being 
arrayed  with  Divine  attributes,  and  performing  Divine  works  equal  to 
his.  That  this  august  Being  was  the  same  who  afterward  appeared  as 
"  The  Christ,"  in  the  person  of  Jesus  of  Nazareth,  was  also  proved ; 
and  the  conclusion  of  that  branch  of  the  argument  was,  that  Jesus 
Christ  is,  in  an  absolute  sense,  a  Divine  person,  and  as  such,  is  to  be 
received  and  adored. 

It  is  difficult  to  conceive  any  point  more  satisfactorily  established  in 
the  Scriptures  than  the  personal  appearance  of  our  Lord,  during  the 
patriarchal  and  Mosaic  dispensations,  under  a  Divine  character ;  but 
this  argument,  so  far  from  having  exhausted  the  proof  of  his  Godhead, 
is  only  another  in  that  series  of  rising  steps  by  which  we  are,  at  length, 
conducted  to  the  most  unequivocal  and  ample  demonstration  of  this  great 
and  fundamental  doctrine. 

The  next  argument  is  stated  at  the  head  of  this  chapter.  If  the  titles 
given  to  Christ  are  such  as  can  designate  a  Divine  Being,  and  a  Divine 
Being  only,  then  is  he,  to  whom  they  are  by  inspired  authority 
ascribed,  Divine ;  or,  otherwise,  the  Word  of  Truth  must  stand 
charged  with  practising  a  direct  deception  upon  mankind,  and  that  in  a 
fundamental  article  of  religion.  This  is  our  argument,  and  we  proceed 
to  the  illustration. 

The  first  of  these  titles  which  calls  for  our  attention  is  that  of  Jehovah. 
Whether  "  the  Angel  Jehovah"  were  the  future  Christ  or  not,  does  not 
affect  this  case.  Even  Socinians  acknowledge  Jesus  to  be  the  Mes- 
siah ;  and  if  this  is  one  of  the  titles  of  the  promised  Messiah,  it  is,  con- 
sequently a  title  of  our  Lord,  and  must  be  ascribed  to  him  by  all  who 
believe  Jesus  to  be  the  Messiah. 

So  many  instances  of  this  were  given  in  the  preceding  chapter,  that 
it  is  unnecessary  to  repeat  them ;  and  indeed  the  fact,  that  the  name 
Jehovah  is  applied  to  the  Messiah  in  many  passages  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, is  admitted  by  the  manner  in  which  the  argument,  deduced  from 
this  fact,  is  objected  to  by  our  opponents.  "  The  Jewish  Cabbalists," 
says  Dr.  Priestley,  "  might  easily  admit  that  the  Messiah  might  be 
called  Jehovah,  without  supposing  that  Jie  was  any  thing  more  than  a 


506  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [P^IiT 

man,  who  had  no  existence  before  his  birth."  "  Several  things  in  the 
Scriptures  are  called  by  the  name  of  Jehovah ;  as,  Jerusalem  is  called 
Jehovah  our  Righteousness."  {History  of  Early  Opinions.)  They  are 
not,  however,  the  Jewish  interpreters  only  who  give  the  name  Jehovah 
to  Messiah ;  but  the  inspired  prophets  themselves,  in  passages  which, 
by  the  equally  inspired  evangelists  and  apostles,  are  applied  to  Jesus. 
No  instance  can  be  given  in  which  any  being,  acknowledged  by  all  to 
be  a  created  being,  is  called  Jehovah  in  the  Scriptures,  or  was  so  called 
among  the  Jews.  The  peculiar  sacredness  attached  to  this  name 
among  them  was  a  sufficient  guard  against  such  an  application  of  it  in 
their  common  language ;  and  as  for  the  Scriptures,  they  explicitly 
represent  it  as  peculiar  to  Divinity  itself.  "  J  am  Jehovah,  that  is  my 
name,  and  my  glory  will  I  not  give  to  another"  "  I  am  Jehovah,  and 
there  is  none  else,  there  is  no  God  beside  me."  "  Thou,  whose  name 
alone  is  Jehovah,  art  the  most  high,  above  all  the  earth."  The  pecu- 
liarity  of  the  name  is  often  strongly  stated  by  Jewish  commentators, 
which  sufficiently  refutes  Dr.  Priestley,  who  affirms  that  they  could  not, 
on  that  account,  conclude  the  Messiah  to  be  more  than  a  man.  Kimschi 
paraphrases  Isaiah  xliii,  8,  "Jehovah,  that  is  my  name" — "  that  name 
is  proper  to  me."  On  Hosea  xii,  5,  "  Jehovah  his  memorial,"  he  says, 
"  In  the  name  El  and  Elohim,  he  communicates  with  others  ;  but,  in 
this  name,  he  communicates  with  none."  Aben  Ezra,  on  Exodus  iii, 
14,  proves,  at  length,  that  this  name  is  proper  to  God.  (Hoornbeck, 
Socin.  Confut.) 

It  is,  surely,  a  miserable  pretence  to  allege,  that  this  name  is  some 
times  given  to  places.  It  is  so ;  but  only  in  composition  with  some 
other  word,  and  not  surely  as  indicative  of  any  quality  in  the  places 
themselves,  but  as  memorials  of  the  acts  and  goodness  of  Jehovah 
himself,  as  manifested  in  those  localities.  So  "  Jehovah- Jireh,  in  the 
mount  of  the  Lord  it  shall  be  seen,"  or,  "  the  Lord  will  see  or  provide," 
referred  to  his  interposition  to  save  Isaac,  and,  probably,  to  the  provi- 
sion of  the  future  sacrifice  of  Christ.  The  same  observation  may  be 
made  as  to  Jehovah  Nissi,  Jehovah  Shallum,  &c :  they  are  names,  not 
descriptive  of  places,  but  of  events  connected  with  them,  which  marked 
the  interposition  and  character  of  God  himself.  It  is  an  unsettled  point 
among  critics  whether  Jah,  which  is  sometimes  found  in  composition  as 
a  proper  name  of  a  man,  as  Abijah,  Jehovah  is  my  father,  Adonijah, 
Jehovah  is  my  lord,  be  an  abbreviation  of  Jehovah  or  not,  so  that  the 
case  will  afford  no  ground  of  argument.  But  if  it  were,  it  would  avail 
nothing,  for  it  is  found  only  in  a  combined  form,  and  evidently  relates 
not  to  the  persons  who  bore  these  names,  as  a  descriptive  appellation, 
but  to  some  connection  which  existed,  or  was  supposed  to  exist,  between 
them  and  the  Jehovah  they  acknowledged  as  their  God.  The  cases 
would  have  been  parallel,  had  our  Lord  been  called  Abijah,  "  Jehovah 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  507 

is  my  father,"  or  Jedediah,  "  the  beloved  of  Jehovah."  Nothing,  in  that 
case,  would  have  been  furnished,  so  far  as  mere  name  was  concerned, 
to  distinguish  him  from  his  countrymen  bearing  the  same  appellatives ; 
but  he  is  called  Jehovah  himself,  a  name  which  the  Scriptures  give  to 
no  person  whatever,  except  to  each  of  the  sacred  Three,  who  stand 
forth,  in  the  pages  of  the  Old  and  New  Testaments,  crowned  with  this 
supreme  and  exclusive  honour  and  eminence. 

Nor  is  it  true,  that  in  Jeremiah  xxxiii,  16,  Jerusalem  is  called  "  Jeho- 
vah our  Righteousness."  The  parallel  passage  in  the  same  book,  chap, 
xxiii,  5,  6,  sufficiently  shows  that  this  is  not  the  name  of  Jerusalem,  but 
the  name  of"  The  Branch."  Much  criticism  has  been  bestowed  upon 
these  passages  to  establish  the  point,  whether  the  clause  ought  to  be 
rendered,  "  And  this  is  the  name  by  which  the  Lord  shall  call  him,  our 
Righteousness ;"  or  "  this  is  the  name  by  which  he  shall  be  called,  the 
Lord  our  Righteousness ;"  which  last  has,  I  think,  been  decisively  esta- 
blished ;  but  he  would  be  a  very  exceptionable  critic  who  should  con- 
clude either  of  them  to  be  an  appellative,  not  of  Messiah,  but  of  Jerusa- 
lem, contrary  both  to  the  scope  of  the  passage  and  to  the  literal  render- 
ing of  the  words,  words  capable  of  somewhat  different  constructions,  but 
in  no  case  capable  of  being  applied  either  to  the  people  of  Judah,  or  to 
the  city  of  Jerusalem. 

The  force  of  the  argument  from  the  application  of  the  name  Jehovah 
to  Messiah  may  be  thus  stated  : — 

Whatever  belongs  to  Messiah,  that  may  and  must  be  attributed  to 
Jesus,  as  being  the  true  and  only  Christ ;  and  accordingly  we  have  seen, 
that  the  evangelists  and  apostles  apply  those  passages  to  our  Lord,  in 
which  the  Messiah  is  unequivocally  called  Jehovah.  But  this  is  the 
peculiar  and  appropriate  name  of  God ;  that  name  by  which  he  is  dis- 
tinguished from  all  other  beings,  and  which  imports  perfections  so  high 
and  appropriate  to  the  only  living  and  true  God,  such  as  self  existence 
and  eternity,  that  it  can,  in  truth,  be  a  descriptive  appellation  of  no  other 
being.  It  is,  however,  solemnly  and  repeatedly  given  to  the  Messiah  ; 
and,  unless  we  can  suppose  Scripture  to  contradict  itself,  by  making  that 
a  peculiar  name  which  is  not  peculiar  to  him,  and  to  establish  an 
inducement  to  that  idolatry  which  it  so  sternly  condemns,  and  an  excuse 
for  it,  then  this  adorable  name  itself  declares  the  absolute  Divinity  of 
him  who  is  invested  with  it,  and  is  to  him,  as  well  as  to  the  Father,  a 
name  of  revelation,  a  name  descriptive  of  the  attributes  which  can  per- 
tain only  to  essential  Godhead. 

This  conclusion  is  corroborated  by  the  constant  use  of  the  title 
"  Lord"  as  an  appellation  of  Jesus,  the  Messiah,  when  manifest  in  the 
flesh.  His  disciples  not  only  applied  to  him  those  passages  of  the  Old 
Testament,  in  which  the  Messias  is  called  Jehovah,  but  salute  and  wor- 
ship him  by  a  title  which  is  of  precisely  the  same  original  import,  and 


508  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

which  is,  therefore,  to  be  considered  in  many  places  of  the  Septuagint 
and  the  New  Testament,  an  exact  translation  of  the  august  name 
Jehovah,  and  fully  equivalent  to  it  in  its  import.  (5)  It  is  allowed,  that  it 
is  also  used  as  the  translation  of  other  names  of  God,  which  import  simply 
dominion,  and  that  it  is  applied  also  to  merely  human  masters  and 
rulers.  It  is  not,  therefore,  like  the  Jehovah  of  the  Old  Testament,  an 
incommunicable  name,  but,  in  its  highest  sense,  it  is  universally  allowed 
to  belong  to  God ;  and  if,  in  this  highest  sense,  it  is  applied  to  Christ, 
then  is  the  argument  valid,  that  in  the  sacred  writers,  whether  used  to 
express  the  self  and  independent  existence  of  him  who  bears  it,  or  that 
dominion  which,  from  its  nature  and  circumstances,  must  be  Divine,  it 
contains  a  notation  of  true  and  absolute  Divinity. 

The  first  proof  of  this  is,  that,  both  in  the  Septuagint  and  by  the 
writers  of  the  New  Testament,  it  is  the  term  by  which  the  name  Jeho- 
vah is  translated.  The  Socinians  have  a  fiction  that  Kupios  properly 
answers  to  Adonai,  because  the  Jews  were  wont,  in  reading,  to  substi- 
tute that  name  in  place  of  Jehovah.  But  this  is  sufficiently  answered 
by  Bishop  Pearson,  who  observes,  that  "  it  is  not  probable  that  the  LXX 
should  think  Kupiog-  to  be  the  proper  interpretation  of  'Jix,  and  yet  give 
it  to  Jehovah,  only  in  the  place  of  Adonai ;  for  if  they  had,  it  would 
have  followed,  that  when  Adonai  and  Jehovah  had  met  in  one  sentence, 
they  would  not  have  put  another  word  for  Adonai,  and  placed  Kupioj  for 
Jehovah,  to  which,  of  itself,  according  to  their  observation,  it  did  not 
belong."  "  The  reason  also  of  the  assertion  is  most  uncertain ;  for, 
though  it  be  confessed  that  the  Masoreths  did  read  Adonai,  when  they 
found  Jehovah,  and  Josephus  before  them  expresses  the  sense  of  the 
Jews  of  his  age,  that  the  TSTpayajx^arov  was  not  to  be  pronounced,  and 
before  him  Philo  speaks  as  much,  yet  it  followeth  not  from  thence  that 
the  Jews  were  so  superstitious  above  three  hundred  years  before,  which 
must  be  proved  before  we  can  be  assured  that  the  LXX  read  Adonai  for 
Jehovah,  and  for  that  reason  translated  it  Kupios."  (Discourses  on 
Creed.)  The  supposition  is,  however,  wholly  overturned  by  several 
passages,  in  which  such  an  interchange  of  the  names  could  not  be  made 
in  the  original,  without  manifestly  depriving  them  of  all  meaning,  and 
which  absurdity  could  not,  therefore,  take  place  in  a  translation,  and  be 
thus  made  permanent.  It  is  sufficient  to  instance  Exodus  vi,  2,  3,  "  ] 
am  the  Lord,  (Jehovah :)  I  appeared  unto  Abraham,  unto  Isaac,  and 
unto  Jacob,  by  the  name  of  God  Almighty,  but  by  my  name  Jehovah 
was  I  not  known  unto  them."  This,  it  is  true,  is  rather  an  obscure  pas- 
sage ;  but,  whatever  may  be  its  interpretation,  this  is  clear,  that  a  sub 

(5)  Bishop  Pearson,  on  the  second  article  of  the  Creed,  thus  concludes  a 
learned  note  on  the  etymology  of  Kvpios,  Lord  :  "  From  all  which  it  undeniably 
appeareth,  that  the  ancient  signification  of  Kupu  is  the  same  with  «i/u,  or  vnapx* 
turn,  I  am  " 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES. 


500 


stitution  of  Adonai  for  Jehovah  would  deprive  it  of  all  meaning  whatever, 
and  yet  here  the  LXX  translate  Jehovah  by  Kupioj. 

Kupios,  Lord,  is,  then,  the  word  into  which  the  Greek  of  the  Septua- 
gint  renders  the  name  Jehovah ;  and,  in  all  passages  in  which  Messias 
is  called  by  that  peculiar  title  of  Divinity,  we  have  the  authority  of  this 
version  to  apply  it,  in  its  full  and  highest  signification,  to  Jesus  Christ, 
who  is  himself  that  Messias.  For  this  reason,  and  also  because,  as  men 
inspired,  they  were  directed  to  fit  and  proper  terms,  the  writers  of  the 
New  Testament  apply  this  appellation  to  their  Master,  when  they  quote 
these  prophetic  passages  as  fulfilled  in  him.  They  found  it  used  in  the 
Greek  version  of  the  Old  Testament,  in  its  highest  possible  import,  as  a 
rendering  of  Jehovah.  Had  they  thought  Jesus  less  than  God,  they 
ought  to  have  avoided,  and  must  have  avoided,  giving  to  him  a  title 
which  would  mislead  their  readers ;  or  else  have  intimated,  that  they 
did  not  use  it  in  its  highest  sense  as  a  title  of  Divinity,  but  in  its  very 
lowest,  as  a  term  of  merely  human  courtesy,  or,  at  best,  of  human 
dominion.  But  we  have  no  such  intimation  ;  and,  if  they  wrote  under 
the  inspiration  of  the  Spirit  of  Truth,  it  follows,  that  they  used  it  as 
being  understood  to  be  fully  equivalent  to  the  title  Jehovah  itself.  This 
their  quotations  will  show.  The  Evangelist  Matthew  (iii,  8)  quotes  and 
applies  to  Christ  the  celebrated  prophecy  of  Isaiah  xl,  3 :  "  For  this  is 
he  that  was  spoken  of  by  the  Prophet  Esaias,  saying,  The  voice  of  one 
crying  in  the  wilderness,  Prepare  ye  the  way  of  the  Lord,  make  his 
paths  straight."  The  other  evangelists  make  the  same  application  of 
it,  representing  John  as  the  herald  of  Jesus,  the  "  Jehovah"  of  the 
prophet,  and  their  "  Kupio£."  It  was,  therefore,  in  the  highest  possible 
sense  that  they  used  the  term,  because  they  used  it  as  fully  equivalent 
to  Jehovah.  So  again,  in  Luke  i,  16,  17  :  "  And  many  of  the  children 
of  Israel  shall  he  turn  to  the  Lord  their  God,  and  he  shall  go  before 
him  in  the  spirit  and  power  of  Elias."  "  Him,"  unquestionably  refers 
to  "  the  Lord  their  God ;"  and  we  have  here  a  proof  that  Christ  bears 
that  eminent  title  of  Divinity,  so  frequent  in  the  Old  Testament,  "  the 
Lord  God,"  Jehovah  Aleim ;  and  also  that  Kupioj  answered,  in  the  view 
of  an  inspired  writer,  to  the  name  Jehovah.  On  this  point  the  Apostle 
Paul  also  adds  his  testimony,  Romans  x,  13, "  Whosoever  shall  call  upon 
the  name  of  the  Lord  shall  be  saved ;"  which  is  quoted  from  Joel  ii,  32, 
"  Whosoever  shall  call  on  the  name  of  Jehovah  shall  be  delivered." 
Other  passages  might  be  added,  but  the  argument  does  not  rest  upon 
their  number ;  these  are  so  explicit,  that  they  are  amply  sufficient  to 
establish  the  important  conclusion,  that,  in  whatever  senses  the  term 
"  Lord"  may  be  used,  and  though  the  writers  of  the  New  Testament, 
like  ourselves,  use  it  occasionally  in  a  lower  sense,  yet  they  use  it  also 
in  its  highest  possible  sense,  and  in  its  loftiest  signification  when  they 


510  THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES.  [PART 

intended  it  to  be  understood  as  equivalent  to  Jehovah,  and,  in  that  sense, 
they  apply  it  to  Christ. 

But,  even  when  the  title  "  Lord"  is  not  employed  to  render  the  name 
Jehovah,  in  passages  quoted  from  the  Old  Testament,  but  is  used  as  the 
common  appellation  of  Christ,  after  his  resurrection,  the  disciples  so 
connect  it  with  other  terms,  and  with  circumstances  which  so  clearly 
imply  Divinity,  that  it  cannot  reasonably  be  made  a  question  but  that 
they  themselves  considered  it  as  a  Divine  title,  and  intended  that  it 
should  be  so  understood  by  their  readers.  In  that  sense  they  applied  it 
to  the  Father,  and  it  is  clear,  that  they  did  not  use  it  in  a  lower  sense 
when  they  gave  it  to  the  Son.  It  is  put  absolutely,  and  by  way  of  emu 
nence,  "  the  Lord."  It  is  joined  with  "  God  ;"  so  in  the  passage  above 
quoted  from  St.  Luke,  where  Christ  is  called  the  Lord  God  ;  and  when 
Thomas,  in  an  act  of  adoration,  calls  him  "  My  Lord  and  my  God." 
When  it  is  used  to  express  dominion,  that  dominion  is  represented  as 
absolute  and  universal,  and,  therefore,  Divine.  "  He  is  Lord  of  all." 
"  King  of  kings  and  Lord  of  lords."  "  Thou,  Lord,  in  the  beginning 
hast  laid  the  foundation  of  the  earth ;  and  the  heavens  are  the  works  of 
thy  hands.  They  shall  perish  ;  but  thou  remainest :  and  they  all  shall 
wax  old,  as  doth  a  garment,  and  as  a  vesture  shalt  thou  change  them, 
and  they  shall  be  changed ;  but  thou  art  the  same,  and  thy  years  shall 
not  fail." 

Thus,  then,  the  titles  of  "  Jehovah"  and  "  Lord"  both  prove  the  Divi- 
nity of  our  Saviour ;  "  for,"  as  it  is  remarked  by  Dr.  Waterland,  "  if 
Jehovah  signify  the  eternal,  immutable  God,  it  is  manifest  that  the  name 
is  incommunicable,  since  there  is  but  one  God ;  and,  if  the  name  be 
incommunicable,  then  Jehovah  can  signify  nothing  but  that  one  God,  to 
whom,  and  to  whom  only,  it  is  applied.  And  if  both  these  parts  be  true, 
and  if  it  be  true,  likewise,  that  this  name  is  applied  to  Christ,  the  conse- 
quence is  irresistible,  that  Christ  is  the  same  one  God,  not  the  same 
person,  with  the  Father,  to  whom  also  the  name  Jehovah  is  attributed, 
but  the  same  substance,  the  same  being,  in  a  word,  the  same  Jehovah, 
thus  revealed  to  be  more  persons  than  one." 

God.  That  this  title  is  attributed  to  Christ  is  too  obvious  to  be 
wholly  denied,  though  some  of  the  passages  which  have  been  alleged 
as  instances  of  this  application  of  the  term  have  been  controverted. 
Even  in  this  a  great  point  is  gained.  Jesus  Christ  is  called  God  :  this 
the  adversaries  of  his  Divinity  are  obliged  to  confess,  and  this  confes- 
sion admits,  that  the  letter  of  Scripture  is,  therefore,  in  favour  of  orthodox 
opinions.  It  is,  indeed,  said,  that  the  term  God,  like  the  term  Lord,  is 
used  in  an  inferior  sense ;  but  nothing  is  gained  by  this ;  nothing  is,  on 
that  account,  proved  against  the  Deity  of  Christ ;  for  it  must  still  be 
allowed,  that  it  is  a  term  used  in  Scripture  to  express  the  Divine  nature, 
and  that  it  is  so  used  generally.      The  question,  therefore,  is  only 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES.  511 

limited  to  this,  whether  our  Lord  is  called  God,  in  the  highest  sense  of 
that  appellation.  This  might,  indeed,  be  argued  from  those  passages  in 
the  Old  Testament  in  which  the  title  is  given  to  the  acting,  manifested 
Jehovah,  "  the  Lord  God"  of  the  Old  Testament ;  but  this  having  been 
anticipated,  I  confine  myself  chiefly  to  the  evangelists  and  apostles. 

Before  that  proof  is  adduced,  which  will  most  unequivocally  show 
that  Jesus  Christ  is  called  God,  in  the  highest  sense  of  that  term,  it  will, 
however,  be  necessary  to  show  that,  in  its  highest  sense,  it  involves  the 
notion  of  absolute  Divinity.  This  has  been  denied :  Sir  Isaac  New- 
ton,  who,  on  theological  subjects,  as  Bishop  Horsley  observes,  "  went 
out  like  a  common  man,"  says  that  the  word  God  "  is  a  relative  term, 
and  has  a  regard  to  servants ;  it  is  true,  it  denotes  a  Being  eternal, 
infinite,  and  absolutely  perfect ;  but  a  Being,  however  eternal,  infinite, 
and  absolutely  perfect,  without  dominion,  would  not  be  God."  (Philos. 
Nat.  Mathce.  in  calce.)  This  relative  notion  of  the  term,  as  itself 
importing  strictly  nothing  more  than  dominion,  was  adopted  by  Dr.  S. 
Clarke,  and  made  use  of  to  support  his  semi-Arianism ;  and  it  seems  to 
have  been  thought,  that,  by  confining  the  term  to  express  mere  sove- 
reignty, the  force  of  all  those  passages  of  Scripture  in  which  Christ  is 
called  God,  and  from  which  his  absolute  Divinity  is  argued,  might  be 
avoided.  His  words  are,  "The  word  Qsoc,  God,  has,  in  Scripture  and 
in  all  books  of  morality  and  religion,  a  relative  signification,  and  not,  as 
in  metaphysical  books,  an  absolute  one :  as  is  evident  from  the  relative 
terms  which,  in  moral  writings,  may  always  be  joined  with  it.  For 
instance :  in  the  same  manner  as  we  say  my  father,  my  king,  and  the 
like ;  so  it  is  proper  also  to  say  my  God,  the  God  of  Israel,  the  God 
of  the  universe,  and  the  like.  Which  words  are  expressive  of  dominion 
and  government.  But,  in  the  metaphysical  way,  it  cannot  be  said  my 
Infinite  Substance,  the  Infinite  Substance  of  Israel,  or  the  like." 

To  this  Dr.  Waterland's  reply  is  an  ample  confutation.  "  I  shall 
only  observe  here,  by  the  way,  that  the  word  star  is  a  relative  word, 
for  the  same  reason  with  that  which  the  doctor  gives  for  the  other. 
For  the  star  of  your  god  Remphan  (Acts  vii,  43)  is  a  proper  expres. 
sion ;  but,  in  the  metaphysical  way,  it  cannot  be  said,  the  luminous 
substance  of  your  god  Remphan.  So  again,  water  is  a  relative  word ; 
for  it  is  proper  to  say  the  water  of  Israel ;  but,  in  the  metaphysical  way, 
it  cannot  be  said,  the  fluid  substance  of  Israel.  The  expression  is 
improper.  (6)    By  parity  of  reason,  we  may  make  relative  words  almost 

(G)  It  is  very  obvious  to  perceive  where  the  impropriety  of  such  expressions 
lies.  The  word  suhstunce,  according  to  the  common  use  of  language,  when  used 
in  the  singular  number,  is  supposed  to  be  intrinsic  to  the  thing  spoken  of,  whoso 
substance  it  is;  and,  indeed,  to  be  the  thing  itself.  My  substance  is  myself; 
and  the  substance  of  Israel  is  Israel.  And  hence  it  evinces  to  be  improper  to 
join  substance  with  the  relative  terms,  understanding  it  of  any  thing  intrinsic. 


512  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

as  many  as  we  please.  But  to  proceed :  I  maintain  that  dominion  is 
not  the  full  import  of  the  word  God  in  Scripture ;  that  it  is  but  a  part 
of  the  idea,  and  a  small  part  too ;  and  that  if  any  person  be  called  God, 
merely  on  account  of  dominion,  he  is  called  so  by  way  of  figure  and 
resemblance  only ;  and  is  not  properly  God,  according  to  the  Scripture 
notion  of  it.  We  may  call  any  one  a  kixg,  who  lives  free  and  independ- 
ent,  subject  to  no  man's  will.  He  is  a  king  so  far,  or  in  some  respects ; 
though,  in  many  other  respects,  nothing  like  one ;  and,  therefore,  not 
properly  a  king.  If,  by  the  same  figure  of  speech,  by  way  of  allusion 
and  resemblance,  any  thing  be  called  God,  because  resembling  God  in 
one  or  more  particulars,  we  are  not  to  conclude  that  it  is  properly  and 
truly  God. 

"  To  enlarge  something  farther  upon  this  head,  and  to  illustrate  the 
case  by  a  few  instances.  Part  of  the  idea  which  goes  along  with  the 
word  God  is,  that  his  habitation  is  sublime,  and  his  dwelling  not  with 
fiesh,  Dan.  ii,  11.  This  part  of  the  idea  is  applicable  to  angels  or  to 
saints,  and  therefore  they  may  thus  far  be  reputed  gods :  and  are  some- 
times  so  styled  in  Scripture  or  ecclesiastical  writings.  Another  part  of 
the  complex  idea  of  God  is  giving  orders  from  above,  and  publishing 
commands  from  heaven.  This  was,  in  some  sense,  applicable  to  Moses, 
who  is,  therefore,  called  a  god  unto  Pharaoh ;  not  as  being  properly  a 
god ;  but  instead  of  God,  in  that  instance,  or  that  resembling  circum- 
stance. In  the  same  respect,  every  prophet  or  apostle,  or  even  a 
minister  of  a  parish,  might  be  figuratively  called  God.  Dominion  goes 
along  with  the  idea  of  God,  or  is  a  proof  of  it ;  and,  therefore,  kings, 
princes,  and  magistrates,  resembling  God  in  that  respect,  may,  by  the 
like  figure  of  speech,  be  styled  gods :  not  properly  ;  for  then  we  might 
as  properly  say  God  David,  God  Solomon,  or  God  Jeroboam,  as  King 
David,  &c ;  but  by  way  of  allusion,  and  in  regard  to  some  imperfect 
resemblance  which  they  bear  to  God  in  some  particular  respects  ;  and 
that  is  all.  It  belongs  to  God  to  receive  worship,  and  sacrifice,  and 
homage.  Now,  because  the  heathen  idols  so  far  resembled  God  as  to 
be  made  the  objects  of  worship,  &c,  therefore  they  also,  by  the  same 
figure  of  speech,  are  by  the  Scripture  denominated  gods,  though,  at  the 
same  time,  they  are  declared,  in  a  proper  sense,  to  be  no  gods.  The 
belly  is  called  the  god  of  the  luxurious,  Phil,  iii,  19,  because  some  are 
as  much  devoted  to  the  service  of  their  bellies  as  others  are  to  the 
service  of  God,  and  because  their  lusts  have  got  the  dominion  over  them. 
This  way  of  speaking  is,  in  like  manner,  grounded  on  some  imperfect 
resemblance,  and  is  easily  understood.  The  prince  of  the  devils  is  sup- 
posed by  most  interpreters,  to  be  called  the  god  of  this  world,  2  Cor. 
iv,  4.  If  so,  the  reason  may  be,  either  because  the  men  of  this  world 
are  entirely  devoted  to  his  service ;  or  that  he  has  got  the  power  and 
dominion  over  them. 


OJ* 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 

"  Thus  we  see  how  the  word  God,  according  to  the  popular  way  of 
speaking,  has  been  applied  to  angels,  or  to  men,  or  to  things  inanimate 
and  insensible  ;  because  some  part  of  the  idea  belonging  to  God  has  been 
conceived  to  belong  to  them  also.  To  argue  from  hence  that  any  of 
them  is  properly  God,  is  making  the  whole  of  a  part,  and  reasoning 
fallaciously,  a  dido  secundum  quid,  as  the  schools  speak,  ad  dictum  sim- 
pliciter.  If  we  inquire  carefully  into  the  Scripture  notion  of  the  word, 
we  shall  find  that  neither  dominion  singly,  nor  all  the  other  instances 
of  resemblance,  make  up  the  idea ;  or  are  sufficient  to  denominate  any 
thing  properly  God.  When  the  prince  of  Tyre  pretended  to  be  God>. 
Ezek.  xxviii,  2,  he  thought  of  something  more  than  mere  dominion  to 
make  him  so.  He  thought  of  strength  invincible  and  power  irresistibls;. 
and  God  was  pleased  to  convince  him  of  his  folly  and  vanity,  not  b}r 
telling  him  how  scanty  his  dominion  was,  or  how  low  his  office ;  but  how  - 
weak,  frail,  and  perishing  his  nature  was ;  that  he  was  man  only>  and 
not  God,  Ezek.  xxviii,  2-9,  and  should  surely  find  so  by  the  ewent. 
When  the  Lycaonians,  upon  the  sight  of  a  miracle  wrought  by  St.  Paul* 
Acts  xiv,  11,  took  him  and  Barnabas  for  gods,  they  did  not  think  so 
much  of  dominion  as  of  power  and  ability,  beyond  human  ;  and  when 
the  apostles  answered  them,  they  did  not  tell  them  that  their  dominion 
was  only  human,  or  that  their  office  was  not  Divine ;  but  that  they  had 
not  a  Divine  nature.  They  were  weak,  frail,  and  feeble  men  ;  of  like 
infirmities  with  the  rest  of  their  species,  and,  therefore,  no  gods. 

"  If  we  trace  the  Scripture  notion  of  what  is  truly  and  properly  God, 
we  shall  find  it  made  up  of  these  several  ideas :  infinite  wisdom,  power 
invincible,  all-sufficiency,  and  the  like.  These  are  the  ground  and 
foundation  of  dominion,  which  is  but  a  secondary  notion,  a  consequence 
of  the  former ;  and  it  must  be  dominion  supreme,  and  none  else,  which 
will  suit  with  the  Scripture  notion  of  God.  It  is  not  that  of  a  governor, 
a  ruler,  a  protector,  a  lord,  or  the  like,  but  a  sovereign  Ruler,  an  almighty 
Protector,  an  omniscient  and  omnipresent  Governor,  an  eternal,  immuta- 
ble, all-sufhcient  Creator,  Preserver,  and  Protector.  Whatever  falls 
short  of  this  is  not  properly,  in  the  Scripture  notion,  God,  but  is  only 
called  so  by  way  of  figure,  as  has  before  been  explained.  Now,  if  you 
ask  me  why  the  relative  terms  may  properly  be  applied  to  the  word  God, 
the  reason  is  plain,  because  there  is  something  relative  in  the  wliole  idea 
of  God,  namely,  the  notion  of  governor,  protector,  &c.  If  you  ask  whv 
they  cannot  so  properly  be  applied  to  the  word  God  in  the  metaphysical 
sense,  beside  the  reason  before  given,  there  is  another  as  plain,  because 
metaphysics,  taking  in  only  one  part  of  the  idea,  consider  the  nature  ab- 
stracted from  the  relation,  leaving  the  relative  part  out." 

To  these  observations  may  be  added  the  argument  of  Dr.  Randolph. 
(Vindication  of  Christ's  Divinity.)  "  If  God  be  a  relative  term,  which 
has  reference  to  subjects,  it  follows  that  when  there  were  no  subjects 

Vol.  I.  33 


514  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

there  was  no  God ;  and,  consequently,  either  the  creatures  must  have 
been  some  of  them  eternal,«or  there  must  have  been  a  time  when  there 
was  no  God."  The  matter,  however,  is  put  beyond  all  doubt,  by  the 
express  testimony  that  it  is  not  dominion  only,  but  excellence  of  nature 
and  attributes  exclusively  Divine  which  enter  into  the  notion  of  God. 
Thus,  in  Psalm  xc,  "  Before  the  mountains  were  brought  forth,  or  ever 
thou  hadst  formed  the  earth  and  the  world,  even  from  everlasting  to  ever 
lasting,  thou  art  God."  Here  the  idea  of  eternity  is  attached  to  tho 
term,  and  he  is  declared  to  be  God  "from  everlasting,"  and,  conse 
quently,  before  any  creature's  existence,  and  so  before  he  could  have 
any  "  subjects,"  or  exercise  any  "  dominion." 

The  import  of  the  title  God,  in  its  highest  sense,  being  thus  established 
to  include  all  the  excellencies  and  glories  of  the  Divine  nature,  on  which 
alone  such  a  dominion  as  is  ascribed  to  God  could  be  maintained,  if  that 
title  be  found  ascribed  to  Christ,  at  any  period,  in  this  its  highest  sense, 
it  will  prove,  not,  as  the  Arians  would  have  it,  his  dominion  only,  but  his 
Divinity ;  and  it  is  no  answer  to  this  at  all  to  say  that  men  are  sometimes 
called  gods  in  the  Scripture.  In  the  New  Testament  the  term  God,  in  the 
singular,  is  never  applied  to  any  man ;  and  it  is  even  a  debated  matter, 
whether  it  is  ever  a  human  appellation,  either  in  the  singular  or  the 
plural,  in  the  Old  Testament,  the  passages  quoted  being  probably  ellipti- 
cal, or  capable  of  another  explanation.  (7)  But  this  is  not  important : 
if,  in  its  highest  sense,  it  is  found  used  of  Christ,  it  matters  not  to  how 
many  persons  it  is  applied  in  its  lower,  or  as  a  merely  figurative  appel- 
lation. 

Matthew  i,  23 :  "  Now  all  this  was  done,  that  it  might  be  fulfilled 
which  was  spoken  of  the  Lord  by  the  prophet,  saying,  Behold  a  virgin 
shall  be  with  child,  and  shall  bring  forth  a  son,  and  they  shall  call  his 
name  Emmanuel,  which  being  interpreted  is,  God  with  us."  This  is 
a  portion  of  Scripture  which  the  Socinians,  in  their  "  Improved  Version," 
have  printed  in  italics,  as  of  "  doubtful  authority,"  though,  with  the  same 
breath,  they  allow  that  it  is  found  "in  all  the  manuscripts  and  versions 
which  are  now  extant."  The  ground,  therefore,  on  which  they  have 
rested  their  objection  is  confessedly  narrow  and  doubtful,  and  frail  as  it 

(7)  Exodus  vii,  1 :  "  See  I  have  made  thee  a  god  to  Pharaoh."  This  seems  to 
be  explained  hy  chapter  iv,  16:  "Thou  shalt  be  to  him  instead  of  God."  Psalm 
lxxxii,  1 :  "God  standeth  in  the  congregation  of  the  mighty:  [Heb.  of  God:]  he 
judgeth  among  the  gods."  This  passage  is  rendered  by  Parkhurst,  "The  Aleim 
stand  in  the  congregation  of  God;  in  the  midst  the  Aleim  will  judge."  And  on 
verse  6,  "  I  have  said  ye  are  gods,"  he  supposes  an  ellipsis  of  Caph,  "  I  have  said 
ye  are  as  gods."  As  this  is  spoken  of  judges,  who  were  professedly  God's  vice- 
gerents, this  is  a  very  natural  ellipsis,  and  there  appears  nothing  against  it  in  the 
argument  of  our  Lord,  John  x,  34.  The  term,  as  used  in  all  these  passages,  does 
not  so  much  appear  to  be  used  in  a  lower  sense,  as  by  figurative  application  and 
ellipsis. 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  515 

is,  it  has  been  entirely  taken  from  them,  and  the  authority  of  this  scrip, 
ture  fully  established.  (Vide  Nare's  Remarks  on  the  New  Version.)  The 
reason  of  an  attempt,  at  once  so  bold  and  futile,  to  expunge  this  passage, 
and  the  following  part  of  St.  Matthew's  history  which  is  connected  with 
it,  may  be  found  in  the  explicitness  of  the  testimony  which  it  bears  to 
our  Lord's  Divinity,  and  which  no  criticism  could  evade.  The  prophecy 
which  is  quoted  by  the  evangelist  has  its  difficulties ;  but  they  do  not  in 
the  least  affect  the  argument.  Whether  we  can  explain  Isaiah  or  not, 
that  is,  whether  we  can  show  in  what  manner  the  prophecy  had  a 
primary  accomplishment  in  the  prophet's  day  or  not,  St.  Matthew  is 
sufficiently  intelligible.  He  tells  us,  that  the  words  spoken  by  the  pro- 
phet were  spoken  of  Christ ;  and  that  his  miraculous  conception  took 
place,  "  that,"  in  order  that,  "  they  might  be  fulfilled  ;"  a  mode  of  ex- 
pression  so  strong,  that  even  those  who  allow  the  prophets  to  be  quoted 
sometimes  by  way  of  accommodation  by  the  writers  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment,  except  this  instance,  as  having  manifestly,  from  the  terms  used, 
the  form  of  an  argument,  and  not  of  a  mere  allusion.  (8)  Farther,  says 
the  sacred  historian,  "  and  they  shall  call  his  name  Emmanuel ;"  that  is, 
according  to  the  idiom  of  Scripture,  where  any  thing  is  said  to  be  called 
what  it  in  reality  is,  he  shall  be  "  Emmanuel,"  and  the  interpretation  is 
added,  "  God  with  us." 

It  is  indeed  objected,  that  the  Divinity  of  Christ  can  no  more  be  argued 
from  this  title  of  Emmanuel  than  the  divinity  of  Eli,  whose  name  signi- 
fies my  God,  or  of  Elihu,  which  imports  my  God  himself ;  but  it  is  to  be 
remarked,  that  by  these  names  such  individuals  were  commonly  and 
constantly  known  among  those  with  whom  they  lived.  But  Immanuel 
was  not  the  personal  name  of  our  Lord,  he  was  not  so  called  by  his 
friends  and  countrymen  familiarly  :  the  personal  name  which  he  received 
was  Jesus,  by  Divine  direction,  and  by  this  he  was  known  to  the  world. 
It  follows,  therefore,  that  Immanuel  was  a  descriptive  title,  a  name  of 
revelation,  expressive  of  his  Divine  character.  It  is  clear,  also,  that  in 
this  passage  he  is  called  God ;  and  two  circumstances,  in  addition  to 
that  just  mentioned,  prove  that  the  term  is  used  in  its  full  and  highest 
sense.  In  Isaiah,  from  which  the  passage  is  quoted  by  the  evangelist, 
the  land  of  Judea  is  called  the  land  of  this  Immanuel  more  than  seven 
centuries  before  he  was  born.  "  And  he  (the  Assyrian)  shall  pass 
through  Judah ;  he  shall  overflow*  and  go  over,  he  shall  reach  even  to 
the  neck,  and  the  stretching  out  of  his  wings  shall  fill  the  breadth  of  thy 
land,  O  Immanuel,"  chap,  viii,  8.  Thus  is  Christ,  according  to  the 
argument  in  a  former  chapter,  represented  as  existing  before  his  birth  in 
Judea,  and,  as  the  God  of  the  Jews,  the  proprietor  of  the  land  of  Israel. 

(8)  "  Formula  citandi  qua  Evangelista  utitur  cap.  i,  22,  tovto  Sc  o\ov  ytyovtv,  iva 
irXijpw.'Hj  to  pr/$sv  manifesto  este  argumentantis,  non  comparantis,  quae  magnopere 
diversa  est  ab  alia  ejosdem  Evangelista;,  et  aliorum,"  &c.    (Dathe,  in  Isa.  vii,  4.} 


516  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  IPART 

This  also  gives  the  true  explanation  of  St.  John's  words,  "  He  came 
unto  his  own,  [nation]  and  his  own  [people]  received  him  not."  The 
second  circumstance  which  proves  the  term  God,  in  the  title  Immanuel, 
to  be  used  in  its  highest  sense  is,  that  the  same  person,  in  the  following 
chapter  of  Isaiah,  is  called  "  God,"  with  the  epithet  of  "  mighty," — 
"  Wonderful,  Counsellor,  the  Mighty  God."  Thus,  as  Bishop  Pearson 
observes,  "  First  he  is  '  Immanu]  that  is,  with  us,  for  he  hath  dwelt 
among  us  ;  and  when  he  parted  from  the  earth,  he  said  to  his  disciples, 
'  I  am  with  you  alway,  even  to  the  end  of  the  world.'  Secondly,  he  is 
El,  and  that  name  was  given  him,  as  the  same  prophet  testified,  •  his 
name  shall  be  called  Wonderful,  Counsellor,  the  Mighty  God.'  He 
then  who  is  both  properly  called  El,  that  is  God,  and  is  also  really 
Immanu,  that  is,  with  us,  must  infallibly  be  that  '  Immanuel,'  who  is 
•  God  with  us.''  No  inferior  Deity,  but  invested  with  the  full  and  com- 
plete attributes  of  absolute  Divinity — •  the  Mighty  God.'  " 

In  Luke  i,  16,  17,  it  is  said  of  John  Baptist,  "And  many  of  the  chil- 
dren of  Israel  shall  he  turn  to  the  Lord  their  God,  and  he  shall  go 
before  him  in  the  spirit  and  power  of  Elias."  This  passage  has  been 
already  adduced  to  prove  that  the  title  "  Lord"  is  used  of  Christ  in  the 
import  of  Jehovah.  But  he  is  called  the  Lord  their  God,  and,  as  the 
term  Lord  is  used  in  its  highest  sense,  so  must  also  the  term  God, 
which  proves  that  this  title  is  given  to  our  Saviour  in  its  fullest  and  most 
extended  meaning — "  to  Jehovah  their  God,"  or  "  to  their  God  Jehovah," 
for  the  meaning  is  the  same. 

John  i,  1 :  "  In  the  beginning  was  the  Word,  and  the  Word  was 
with  God,  and  the  Word  was  God."  When  we  come  to  consider  the 
title  "  The  Word,"  Aoyos,  this  passage  will  be  examined  more  at  large. 
Here  it  is  adduced  to  prove  that  the  Logos,  by  whom  all  understand 
Christ,  is  called  God  in  the  highest  sense.  1.  Because  when  it  is  used 
of  the  Father,  in  the  preceding  clause,  it  must  be  used  in  its  full  import. 
2.  Because  immediately  to  call  our  Lord  by  the  same  name  as  the 
Father,  without  any  hint  of  its  being  used  in  a  lower  sense,  would  have 
been  to  mislead  the  reader  on  a  most  important  question,  if  St.  John  had 
not  regarded  him  as  equal  to  the  Father.  3.  Because  the  creation  is 
ascribed  to  the  "  Word,"  who  is  called  God.  "  All  things  were  made 
by  him,  and  without  him  was  not  any  thing  made  that  was  made."  By 
this  the  absolute  Divinity  of  Christ  is  infallibly  determined,  unless  we 
should  run  into  the  absurdity  of  supposing  it  possible  for  a  creature  to 
create,  and  not  only  to  create  all  other  created  things,  but  himself  also. 
For,  if  Christ  be  not  God,  he  is  a  creature  ;  and  if  "  not  any  thing  that 
was  made,"  was  made  "  without  him,"  then  he  made  himself. 

This  decided  passage,  as  may  be  supposed,  has  been  subjected  to  much 
critical  scrutiny  by  the  enemies  of  the  faith,  and  many  attempts  have 
been  made  to  resist  its  force.     It  is  objected,  that  the  Father  is  called 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES.  517 

6  §sos,  and  the  "  Word"  simply  ^sog,  without  the  article.     To  which  Dr. 
Middleton  replies :  (Doctrine  of  the  Greek  Article.) 

"  Certain  critics,  as  is  well  known,  have  inferred  from  the  absence 
of  the  article  in  this  place,  that  6sog  is  here  used  in  a  subordinate  sense ; 
it  has,  however,  been  so  satisfactorily  answered  that  in  whatever  ac- 
ceptation 6eo$  is  to  be  taken,  it  properly  rejects  the  article,  being  here  the 
predicate  of  the  proposition ;  and  Bengel  instances  the  LXX,  1  Kings 
Ann,  24,  x<ros  6sog,  as  similar  to  the  present  passage.  It  may  be  added, 
that  if  we  had  read  6  Sso?,  the  proposition  would  have  assumed  the  con- 
vertible form,  and  the  meaning  would  have  been,  that  whatever  may  be 
affirmed  or  denied  of  God  the  Father,  may  also  be  affirmed  or  denied 
of  the  Logos,  a  position  which  would  accord  as  little  with  the  trinitarian 
as  with  the  Socinian  hypotheses.  It  is,  therefore,  unreasonable  to  infer, 
that  the  word  deos  is  here  used  in  a  lower  sense ;  for  the  writer  could 
not  have  written  'O  6sog  without  manifest  absurdity."* 

In  many  passages  too,  in  which,  without  dispute,  Ssos  is  meant  of  the 
Supreme  Being,  the  article  is  not  used.  Matthew  xix,  26,  "  With  men 
this  is  impossible,  but  with  God  (#sw)  all  things  are  possible."  Luke 
xvi,  13,  "  Ye  cannot  serve  (&iu)  and  mammon."  John  i,  18,  "No  man 
hath  seen  God  (dsov)  at  any  time."  John  ix,  33,  "  If  this  man  were  not 
of  God  (dsov)  he  could  do  nothing."  John  xvi,  30,  "By  this  we  believe 
that  thou  earnest  from  God,"  (dsou.)  Many  other  instances  might  be 
given,  but  these  amply  reply  to  the  objection. 

To  evade  the  force  of  the  argument  drawn  from  the  creation  being 
ascribed  to  the  Word,  a  circumstance  which  fixes  his  title  "  God"  in 
its  highest  possible  sense,  it  is  alleged,  that  the  word  yivofjuxi  never  sig- 
nifies to  create,  and  the  Socinian  version,  therefore,  renders  the  text, 
"  All  things  were  done  by  him,"  and  the  translators  inform  us,  in  a  note, 
this  means,  that  "  all  things  in  the  Christian  dispensation  were  done  by 
Christ,  that  is,  by  his  authority."  But  what  shall  we  say  to  this  bold 
assertion,  that  yivojxai  is  never  used  with  reference  to  creative  acts  in 
the  New  Testament,  when  the  following  passages  may  be  adduced  in 
refutation  ?  Heb.  iv,  3,  "  Although  the  works  were  finished  from  the 
foundation  of  the  world."  Heb.  xi,  8,  "  So  that  things  which  are  seen 
were  not  made  of  things  that  do  appear."  James  iii,  9,  "  Men  which 
are  made  after  the  similitude  of  God."  In  all  these  passages,  and  in 
some  places  of  the  Septuagint  also,  that  very  word  is  used  which,  they 
tell  us,  never  expresses,  in  Scripture,  the  notion  of  creation.  Even  the 
same  chapter,  verse  10,  gives  an  instance  of  the  same  use  of  the  word. 
"  He  was  in  the  world,  and  the  world  was  made  (eysvero)  by  him."  For 
this,  of  course,  they  have  a  criticism ;  but  the  manner  in  which  this 
passage,  so  directly  in  refutation  of  their  assertion,  is  disposed  of  in  their 
"  Improved  Version,"  is  a  striking  confirmation  of  the  entire  impossi- 
bility of  accommodating  Scripture  to  their  system.     "  The  world  was 


518  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

made  by  him,"  says  the  evangelist.  "  The  world  was  enlightened  by 
nim,"  say  the  Socinian  translators,  without  the  slightest  authority,  and 
in  entire  contradiction  to  the  scope  of  the  passage.  Why  did  they  not 
render  the  word  as  in  the  preceding  verse,  "  The  world  was  done  by 
him  ?"  which,  in  point  of  fact,  makes  no  difference  in  the  sense,  when 
rightly  considered.  The  doing,  ascribed  to  the  Eternal  Word,  is  of  a 
specific  character, — doing  in  the  sense  of  framing,  making,  or  creating 
(•n-avra)  "  all  things." 

The  Socinians  have  not,  however,  fully  satisfied  themselves  with  this 
notable  criticism  in  their  "  Improved  Version  ;"  and  some  of  them,  there- 
fore, render  "  all  things  were  made  by  him,"  "  all  things  were  made  for 
him."  But  these  criticisms  cannot  stand  together.  If  the  verb  yivo^a» 
is  to  be  deprived  of  the  import  of  creation,  then  it  is  impossible  to  retain 
the  rendering  of  "  all  things  were  made  for  him,"  since  his  own  acts  of 
ordering  the  Christian  dispensation  and  "  enlightening"  the  world  could 
not  be  "for  him,"  but  must  have  been  done  "  by  him."  If,  on  the  con- 
trary,  they  will  have  it  that  all  things  were  done  for  him,  then  yivo^at 
must  be  allowed  to  import  creation,  or  their  production  by  the  omnipo- 
tence of  God.  Both  criticisms  they  cannot  hold,  and  thus  they  confess 
that  one  destroys  the  other.  Their  rendering  of  Si  aurou  cannot,  how- 
ever, be  supported  ;  for  Sia,  with  a  genitive,  denotes  not  the  final,  but 
the  efficient  cause.  (9)  The  introduction  to  St.  John's  Gospel  may, 
therefore,  be  considered  as  an  inexpugnable  proof  that  Deity,  in  its  high- 
est, and  in  no  secondary  or  subordinate  sense  is  ascribed  to  our  Saviour, 
under  his  title  God — "  and  the  Word  was  God."  Nor  in  any  other 
than  the  highest  sense  of  the  term  God  can  the  confession  of  Thomas, 
John  xx,  28,  be  understood.  "  And  Thomas  answered  and  said  unto 
him,  my  Loed  and  my  God."  The  Socinian  version,  in  its  note  on 
this  passage,  intimates  that  it  may  be  considered  not  as  a  confession, 
but  as  an  exclamation,  "  My  Lord  !  and  my  God !"  thereby  choosing  to 
put  profane,  or,  at  least,  vulgar  language  into  the  mouth  of  this  apostle, 
of  which  degradation  we  have  certainly  no  example  in  the  narration 
of  the  evangelists.  Michaelis  has  justly  observed,  that  if  Thomas  had 
spoken  German,  (he  might  have  added  English,  French,  or  Italian,)  it 
might  have  been  contended  with  some  plausibility,  that  "  My  Lord  and 
my  God"  was  only  an  irreverent  ejaculation ;  but  that  Jewish  astonish- 
ment was  thus  expressed  is  wholly  without  proof  or  support.  Add  to 
this,  that  the  words  are  introduced  with  jmtsv  aurw,  said  to  him,  that  is, 
to  Christ ;  a  mere  ejaculation,  such  as  that  here  supposed,  is  rather  an 
appeal  to  Heaven.  Our  Saviour's  reply  makes  it  absolutely  certain,  that 
the  words  of  Thomas,  though  they  are  in  the  form  of  an  exclamation, 

(9)  So  Sia  is  used  throughout  St.  John's  Gospel ;  and  in  Heb.  ii,  10,  it  is  said 
of  the  Father,  Si'  ov  ra  iravra,  "by  whom  are  all  things."  So  also  Rom.  xi,  36, 
"  Of  him,  and  through  him,  (Si'  avrov,)  and  to  him  are  all  things." 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  519 

amount  to  a  confession  of  faith,  and  were  equivalent  to  a  direct  asser- 
tion of  our  Saviour's  Divinity.  Christ  commends  Thomas's  acknow- 
ledgment, while  he  condemns  the  tardiness  with  which  it  is  made  ;  but 
to  what  did  this  acknowledgment  amount  ?  That  Christ  was  Lord  and 
God.  (Middleton.) 

In  Titus  ii,  13,  "Looking  for  that  blessed  hope,  and  the  glorious  ap- 
pearing of  the  great  God  and  our  Saviour  Jesus  Christ,"  our  Lord  is  not 
only  called  God,  but  the  great  God,  which  marks  the  sense  in  which 
the  term  is  used  by  the  apostle,  and  gives  unequivocal  evidence  of  his 
opinions  on  the  subject  of  Christ's  Divinity.  Socinian  and  Arian  inter- 
preters tell  us,  that  "  the  great  God  and  our  Saviour  Jesus  Christ''  are 
two  persons,  and  therefore  refer  the  title  "  great  God"  to  the  Father. 
The  Socinian  version  accordingly  renders  the  text,  "the  glorious  ap- 
pearance of  the  great  God  and  of  our  Saviour  Jesus  Christ."  To  this 
interpretation  there  are  satisfactory  answers.     Dr.  Whitby  observes  : — 

"  Here  it  deserveth  to  be  noted,  that  it  is  highly  probable,  that  Jesus 
Christ  is  styled  the  great  God,  1.  Because,  in  the  original,  the  article 
is  prefixed  only  before  the  great  God,  and  therefore,  seems  to  require 
this  construction,  the  appearance  of  Jesus  Christ,  the  great  God  and 
our  Saviour.  2.  Because,  as  God  the  Father  is  not  said  properly  to 
appear,  so  the  word  siriipaveia  never  occurs  in  the  New  Testament,  but 
when  it  is  applied  to  Jesus  Christ  and  to  some  coming  of  his  ;  the  places 
in  which  it  is  to  be  found  being  only  these,  2  Thess.  ii,  8  ;  1  Tim.  vi,  14  ; 
2  Tim.  i,  10,  and  iv,  1,  8.  3.  Because  Christ  is  emphatically  styled 
lour  hope,'  'the  hope  of  glory:''  Col.  i,  23 ;  1  Tim.  i,  1.  And  lastly, 
because  not  only  all  the  ancient  commentators  on  the  place  do  so  inter- 
pret this  text,  but  the  anti-Nicene  fathers  also  ;  Hyppolitus,  speaking  of 
the  appearance  of  our  God  and  Saviour,  Jesus  Christ ;  and  Clemens 
of  Alexandria,  proving  Christ  to  be  both  God  and  man,  our  Creator,  and 
the  Author  of  all  our  good  things,  from  these  very  words  of  St.  Paul." 
(Exposition.) 

Independent  of  the  criticism  which  rests  upon  the  absence  of  the 
article,  it  is  sufficient  to  establish  the  claim  of  our  Saviour  to  the  title  of 
"the  great  God"  in  this  passage,  that  switpavsict,  "the  appearing,"  is 
never,  in  the  New  Testament,  spoken  of  the  Father,  but  of  the  Son 
only ;  but,  since  the  time  of  this  critic,  the  doctrine  of  the  Greek  article 
has  undergone  ample  and  acute  investigation,  and  has  placed  new 
guards  around  this  and  some  other  passages  of  similar  construction 
against  the  perversions  of  heresy.  It  has,  by  these  investigations,  been 
established,  that  the  Greek  idiom  forbids  ©-sou  and  (furripog  to  be  under- 
stood except  of  the  same  person  ;  and  Mr.  Granville  Sharp,  therefore, 
translates  the  text,  "  expecting  the  blessed  hope  and  appearance  of  our 
great  God  and  Saviour  Jesus  Christ :"  siriq>av;iav  riri$  So^s  tou  ixsyakoi 
^Sou  xa»  flWr,po£  qjxav  Itjo'cju  jcpioYou. 


520  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

"This  interpretation  depends  upon  the  rule  or  canon  brought  forward 
into  notice  not  many  years  ago  by  Mr.  Granville  Sharp.  It  excited 
a  controversy,  and  Unitarians  either  treated  it  with  ridicule,  or  denied 
its  applicability  to  the  New  Testament.  But  after  it  had  been  shown 
by  Mr.  Wordsworth,  that  most  of  the  texts  to  which  the  rule  applies 
were  understood  in  the  way  Mr.  Sharp  explained  them  by  the  ancient 
fathers,  who  must  surely  have  known  the  idiom  of  their  native  tongue  ; 
and  after  the  doctrine  of  the  Greek  article  had  been  investigated  with 
so  much  penetration  and  learning  by  Dr.  Middleton,  all  who  have  paid 
attention  to  the  subject  have  acquiesced  in  the  canon."  (Uplden's  Tes- 
timonies.) 

This  important  canon  of  criticism  is  thus  stated  by  Dr.  Middleton : — 

"  When  two  or  more  attributes,  joined  by  a  copulative  or  copulatives, 
are  assumed  of  the  same  person  or  thing,  before  the  first  attributive  the 
article  is  inserted,  before  the  remaining  ones  it  is  omitted."  The  limita- 
tions of  this  rule  may  be  seen  in  the  learned  author's  work  itself,  with 
the  reasons  on  which  they  rest.  They  are  found  in  "  names  of  sub- 
stances,  considered  as  substances,  proper  names,  or  names  of  abstract 
ideas  ;"  and  with  such  exceptions,  and  that  of  plurals  occasionally,  the 
rule  uniformly  holds.  (1) 

Another  passage  in  which  the  appellation  God  is  given  to  Christ,  in  a 
connection  which  necessarily  obliges  us  to  understand  it  in  its  highest 
sense,  is  Heb.  i,  8  :  "  But  unto  the  Son  he  saith,  Thy  throne,  O  God,  is 
for  ever  and  ever."  The  argument  of  the  apostle  here  determines  the 
sense  in  which  he  calls  Jesus,  the  Son,  "  God,"  and  the  views  he  eter- 
tains  of  his  nature.  Angels  and  men  are  the  only  rational  created  beings 
in  the  universe  which  are  mentioned  by  the  sacred  writers.  The  apos- 
tle argues  that  Christ  is  superior  even  to  angels ;  that  they  are  but 
ministers,  he  a  sovereign,  seated  on  a  throne ;  that  they  worship  him, 
and  that  he  receives  their  worship  ;  that  they  are  creatures,  but  he  crea- 
tor. "  Thou,  Lord,  in  the  beginning  hast  laid  the  foundation  of  the 
earth ;  and  the  heavens  are  the  works  of  thine  hands ;"  and  full  of 
these  ideas  of  supreme  Divinity,  he  applies  a  passage  to  him  out  of 
the  45th  Psalm,  which  is  there  addressed  to  the  Messiah,  "  Thy  throne, 
O  God,  is  for  ever  and  ever." 

The  Socinian  version  renders  the  passage,  "  But  to  the  Son  he  saith, 
•God  is  thy  throne  for  ever  and  ever,"  and  in  this  it  follows  Wakefield 
,and  some  others. 

The  first  reason  given  to  support  this  rendering  is,  that  6  6;og  is  the 
nominative  ease.  But  the  nominative,  both  in  common  and  in  Attic  Greek, 
is  often  used  for  the  vocative.     It  is  so  used  frequently  by  the  LXX, 

(1)  See  Middleton  on  the  Greek  article  ;  also,  remarks  at  the  close  of  the  Epis. 
tie  to  the  Ephesians  and  the  Epistle  to  Titus,  in  Dr.  A.  Clarke's  Commentary ; 
Wordworth's  Letters  to  Sharp  ;  Dr.  P.  Smith's  Person  of  Christ. 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL   INSTITUTES.  521 

and  by  the  writers  of  the  New  Testament.  The  vocative  form,  indeed, 
very  rarely  occurs  in  either,  the  nominative  almost  exclusively  supplying 
its  place ;  and  in  this  passage  it  was  so  taken  by  the  Greek  fathers.  (2) 
The  criticism  is,  therefore,  groundless. 

The  second  is,  that  as  the  words  are  addressed  to  Solomon  in  the 
psalm  from  which  they  are  quoted,  they  must  be  understood  to  declare, 
that  God  was  the  support  of  his  throne.  But  the  opinion  that  the 
psalm  was  composed  concerning  Solomon's  marriage  with  Pharaoh's 
daughter,  (3)  has  no  foundation,  either  in  Scripture  or  in  antiquity,  and 
is,  indeed,  contradicted  by  both.  On  this  subject  Bishop  Horsley 
remarks : — 

*  The  circumstances  which  are  characteristic  of  the  king,  who  is  the 
hero  of  this  poem,  are  every  one  of  them  utterly  inapplicable  to  Solomon ; 
insomuch,  that  not  one  of  them  can  be  ascribed  to  him,  without  contra- 
dicting the  history  of  his  reign.  The  hero  of  this  poem  is  a  warrior,  who 
girds  his  sword  upon  his  thigh ;  rides  in  pursuit  of  flying  foes ;  makes 
havoc  among  them  with  his  sharp  arrows ;  and  reigns,  at  last,  by  con- 
quest, over  his  vanquished  enemies.  Now,  Solomon  was  no  warrior  ;  he 
enjoyed  a  long  reign  of  forty  years  of  uninterrupted  peace. 

"Another  circumstance  of  distinction  in  the  great  personage  celebrated 
by  this  psalm  is  his  love  of  righteousness  and  hatred  of  wickedness. 
The  original  expresses,  that  he  had  set  his  heart  upon  righteousness,  and 
bore  an  antipathy  to  wickedness.  His  love  of  righteousness  and  hatred 
of  wickedness  had  been  so  much  the  ruling  principles  of  his  whole  con- 
duct, that,  for  this,  he  was  advanced  to  a  condition  of  the  highest  bliss, 
and  endless  perpetuity  was  promised  to  his  kingdom.  The  word  we 
render  '  righteousness,'  in  its  strict  and  proper  meaning,  signifies  'jus- 
tice,' or  the  constant  and  perpetual  observance  of  the  natural  distinctions 
of  right  and  wrong  in  civil  society ;  and  principally  with  respect  to 
property  in  private  persons,  and,  in  a  magistrate  or  sovereign,  in  the 
impartial  exercise  of  judicial  authority..  But  the  word  we  render 
1  wickedness,'  denotes  not  only  '  injustice,'  but  whatever  is  contrary  to 
moral  purity  in  the  indulgence  of  the  appetites  of  the  individual,  and 
whatever  is  contrary  to  a  principle  of  true  piety  toward  God.  Now,  the 
word  •  righteousness'  being  here  opposed  to  this  wickedness,  must,  cer- 
tainly be  taken  as  generally  as  the  word  to  which  it  is  opposed  in  a  con- 
trary signification.  It  must  signify,  therefore,  not  merely  'justice,'  in 
the  sense  we  have  explained,  but  purity  of  private  manners,  and  piety 
toward  God.  Now,  Solomon  was  certainly,  upon  the  whole,  a  good 
king,  nor  was  he  without  piety  ;  but  his  love  of  righteousness,  in  the 

(2)  "Omnes  (Patres)  uno  consensu  b  8tos  hoc  in  loco  vocative  acceperunt, 
prout  in  Psalmis  frequente  a  LXX  usurpatur,  et  alioqui  familiare  est  Gnecis, 
Atticis  prcBsertim,  nominandi  casum  vocative  sumere."  (Bishop  Bull.) 

(3)  This  notion  appears  to  have  originated  with  Calvin. 


522  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

large  sense  in  which  we  have  shown  the  word  is  to  be  taken,  and  his 
antipathy  to  the  contrary,  fell  very  far  short  of  what  the  psalmist  ascribes 
to  his  great  king,  and  procured  for  him  no  such  stability  of  his  monarchy. 

"  Another  circumstance  wholly  inapplicable  to  Solomon,  is  the  nume- 
rous progeny  of  sons,  the  issue  of  the  marriage,  all  of  whom  were  to 
be  made  princes  over  all  the  earth.  Solomon  had  but  one  son,  that  we 
read  of,  that  ever  came  to  be  a  king — his  son  and  successor,  Rehoboam  ; 
and  so  far  was  he  from  being  a  prince  over  all  the  earth,  that  he  was  no 
sooner  seated  on  the  throne  than  he  lost  the  greater  part  of  his  father's 
kingdom. 

"  For,  would  it  be  said  of  him  that  his  kingdom,  which  lasted  only 
forty  years,  is  eternal  ?  It  was  not  even  eternal  in  his  posterity.  And, 
with  respect  to  his  loving  righteousness  and  hating  wickedness,  it  but  ill 
applies  to  one  who  in  his  old  age  became  an  encourager  of  idolatry, 
through  the  influence  of  women.  This  psalm,  therefore,  is  applicable 
only  to  the  Christ.  Farther,  Solomon's  marriage  with  Pharaohs  daughter 
being  expressly  condemned  as  contrary  to  the  law,  1  Kings  xi,  2,  to 
suppose  that  this  psalm  was  composed  in  honour  of  that  event,  is,  cer- 
tainly, an  ill-founded  imagination.  Estius  informs  us,  that  the  rabbins, 
in  their  commentaries,  affirm,  that  Psalm  xlv  was  written  wholly  concern- 
ing the  Messiah.  Accordingly,  they  translate  the  title  of  the  psalm  as 
we  do,  a  Song  of  Loves ;  the  LXX,  w<Stj  vifsp  m  ayuirri'rx,  a  song  concerning 
the  beloved ;  Vulgate,  pro  dilecto :  a  title  justly  given  to  Messiah,  whom 
God,  by  voices  from  heaven,  declared  his  beloved  Son.  Beside,  as  the 
word  Meschil,  which  signifies  for  instruction,  (LXX,  sis  tfuvstfiv,  Vulgate, 
ad  intellectum,)  is  inserted  in  the  title,  and  as  no  mention  is  made  in  the 
psalm  of  Solomon,  from  an  account  of  whose  loves,  as  Pierce  observes, 
the  Jewish  Church  was  not  likely  to  gain  much  instruction,  we  are  led  to 
understand  the  psalm,  not  of  Solomon,  but  of  Messiah  only." 

The  interpretation  "  God  is  thy  throne,"  is,  moreover,  monstrous,  and 
derives  no  support  from  any  parallel  figurative,  or  elliptical  mode  of 
expression  in  the  sacred  writings — God,  the  throne  of  a  creature  !  And, 
finally,  as  stated  by  Middleton,  had  that  been  the  sense  of  the  passage, 
the  language  requires  that  it  should  have  been  written,  Qpovog  <fov  6  Gsog, 
not  6  dpovoj,  (Doctrine  of  the  Greek  Article,)  which,  on  the  Socinian 
interpretation,  is  the  predicate  of  the  proposition.  So  futile  are  all  these 
attempts  to  shake  the  evidence  which  this  text  gives  to  the  absolute  God- 
head of  our  Saviour. 

"  And  we  know  that  the  Son  of  God  is  come,  and  hath  given  us  an 
understanding,  that  we  may  know  him  that  is  true,  and  we  are  in  him  that 
is  true,  even  in  his  Son  Jesus  Christ.  This  is  the  true  God  and 
eternal  life,"  1  John  v,  20.  Here  our  Saviour  is  called  the  true  God 
and  eternal  life.  The  means  by  which  this  testimony  is  evaded,  is  to 
interpret  the  clause,  "  him  that  is  true,''  of  the  Father,  and  to  refer  the 


SECOND.j  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  523 

pronoun  this,  not  to  the  nearest  antecedent,  "  his  Son  Jesus  Christ,"  but 
to  the  most  remote,  "  him  that  is  true."  All,  however,  that  is  pretended 
by  the  Socinian  critics  on  this  passage  is,  not  that  this  construction  must, 
but  that  it  may  take  place.  Yet  even  this  feeble  opposition  to  the 
received  rendering  cannot  be  maintained  :  for,  1.  To  interpret  the  clause, 
"  him  that  is  true,"  of  the  Father,  is  entirely  arbitrary ;  and  the  scope 
of  the  epistle,  which  was  to  prove  that  Jesus  the  Christ  was  the  true  Son 
of  God,  and,  therefore,  Divine,  against  those  who  denied  his  Divinity, 
and  that  "  he  had  come  in  the  flesh,"  in  opposition  to  the  heretics  who 
denied  his  humanity,  (4)  obliges  us  to  refer  that  phrase  to  the  Son,  and 
not  to  the  Father.  2.  If  it  could  be  established  that  the  Father  was 
intended  by  "  him  that  is  true,"  it  would  be  contrary  to  grammatical 
usage  to  refer  the  pronoun  this,  is  the  "  true  God  and  eternal  life,"  to  the 
remote  antecedent,  without  obvious  and  indisputable  necessity. 

"  Whose  are  the  fathers,  and  of  whom,  as  concerning  the  flesh,  Christ 
came,  who  is  over  all,  God  blessed  for  ever,"  Rom.  ix,  5. 

With  respect  to  this  text,  it  is  to  be  noted, — 

1.  That  it  continues  an  enumeration  of  the  particular  privileges  of  the 
Jewish  nation  which  are  mentioned  in  the  preceding  verses,  and  the 
apostle  adds,  "  whose  are  the  fathers,"  the  patriarchs,  and  prophets,  and 
of  whom  "  the  Christ  came." 

2.  That  he  throws  in  a  clause  of  limitation  with  respect  to  the  com- 
ing of  Christ,  "  according  to  the  flesh,"  which  clearly  states  that  it  was 
only  according  to  the  flesh,  the  humanity  of  Christ,  that  he  descended 
from  the  Jewish  nation,  and,  at  the  same  time,  intimates,  that  he  was 
more  than  flesh,  or  mere  human  nature. 

3.  The  sentence  does  not  end  here  :  the  apostle  adds,  "  who  is,  over 
all,  God  blessed  for  ever ;"  a  relative  expression  which  evidently  refers 
to  the  antecedent  Christ;  and  thus  we  have  an  antithesis,  which  shows 
the  reason  why  the  apostle  introduced  the  limiting  clause,  "  according  to 
the  flesh ;"  and  explains  why  Christ,  in  one  respect,  did  descend  from 
the  Jews ;  and  in  another,  that  this  could  not  be  affirmed  of  him :  he 
was  "  God  overall,"  and,  therefore,  only  "  according  to  the  flesh"  could 
he  be  of  human  descent. 

4.  That  this  completes  the  apostle's  purpose  to  magnify  the  privileges 
of  his  nation  :  aftert  enumerating  many  others,  he  crowns  the  whole  by 

(4)  These  were  the  docetse,  who  taught  that  our  Lord  was  a  man  in  appearance 
only,  and  suffered  and  died  in  appearance  only.  On  the  contrary,  the  Cerin- 
thians,  and  others  believed  that  the  Son  of  God  was  united  to  the  human  nature 
at  his  baptism,  departed  from  it  before  his  passion,  and  was  reunited  to  it  after 
his  resurrection.  According  to  the  former,  Christ  was  man  in  appearance  only  ; 
according  to  the  latter,  he  was  the  Son  of  God  at  the  time  of  his  passion  and  death 
in  appearance  only.  We  see,  then,  the  reason  why  St.  John,  who  writes  against 
these  errors,  so  often  calls  Christ,  "  him  that  is  true,"  true  God  and  true  man, 
not  either  in  appearance  only. 


524  THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES.  TPART 

declaring,  that  "  God  over  all,"  when  he  became  incarnate  for  the  sake 
of  human  salvation,  took  a  body  of  the  seed  of  Abraham. 

Criticism  has,  of  course,  endeavoured,  if  possible,  to  weaken  the  argu- 
ment drawn  from  this  lofty  and  impregnable  passage  ;  but  it  is  of  such  a 
kind  as  greatly  to  confirm  the  truth.     For,  in  the  first  place,  various 
readings  of  manuscripts  cannot  here  be  resorted  to  for  rendering  the 
sense  dubious,  and  all  the  ancient  versions  support  the  present  reading. 
It  has,  indeed,  been  alleged,  on  the  authority  of  Grasinus,  that  though  the 
word  "  God"  is  found  in  all  our  present  copies,  it  was  wanting  in  those 
of  Cyprian,  Hilary,  and  Chrysostom.     But  this  has  been  abundantly 
proved  to  be  an  error,  that  word  being  found  in. the  manuscripts  and  best 
editions  of  Cyprian  and  Hilary,  and  even  St.  Chrysostom  affords  decisive 
testimony  to  the  common  reading ;  in  short,  "  the  word  God,  in  this  text 
is  found  in  every  hnown  manuscript  of  this  epistle,  in  every  ancient 
version  extant,  and  in  every  father  who  has  had  occasion  to  quote  the 
passage ;  so  that,  in  truth,  there  can  scarcely  be  instanced  a  text  in  the 
New  Testament  in  which  all  the  ancient  authorities  more  satisfactorily 
agree."   (Magee  on  Atonement.     See  also  Nares  on  the  New  Version.) 
The  only  method  of  dealing  with  this  passage  left  to  Arians  and  Soci- 
nians  was,  therefore,  to  attempt  to  obtain  a  different  sense  from  it  by 
shifting  the  punctuation.     By  this  device  some  read,  "  and  of  whom  is 
the  Christ,  according  to  the  flesh.     God,  who  is  over  all,  be  blessed  for 
ever."     Others,  "  and  of  whom  is  the  Christ,  according  to  the  flesh, 
who  is  over  all.     Blessed  be  God  for  ever."   A  critic  of  their  own,  Mr. 
Wakefield,  whose  authority  they  acknowledge  to  be  very  great,  may, 
however,  here  be  turned  against  them.     Both  these  constructions,  he 
acknowledges,  appear  so  awkward,  so  abrupt,  so  incoherent,  that  he  never 
could  be  brought  to  relish  them  in  the  least  degree ;   (Inquiry  into 
Opinions,  tyc;)  and  Dr.  S.  Clarke  who  was  well  disposed  to  evade  this 
decisive  passage,  acknowledges  that  the  common  reading  is  the  most 
obvious.     But  independent  of  the  authority  of  critics,  there  are  several 
direct  and  fatal  objections  to  this  altered  punctuation.     It  leaves  the 
limiting  clause,  "  according  to  the  flesh,"  wholly  unaccounted  for ;  for  no 
possible  reason  can  be  given  for  that  limitation  on  the  Socinian  scheme. 
If  the  apostle  had  regarded  Christ  simply  as  a  man,  he  could  have  come 
in  no  other  way  than  "according  to  the  flesh  ;"  nor  is  this  relieved  at  all 
by  rendering  the  phrase,  as  in  their  "  Improved  Version,"  by  "  natural 
descent,"  for  a  mere  man  could  only  appear  among  men  by  "  natural 
descent."     Either,  therefore,  the  clause  is  a  totally  unmeaning  and  an 
impertinent  parenthesis,  or  it  has  respect  to  the  natural  antithesis  which 
follows — his  supreme  Divinity,  as  "  God  over  all."     Thus  the  scope  of 
the  passage  prohibits  this  license  of  punctuation.     To  the  latter  clause 
being  considered  as  a  doxology  to  God  the  Father,  there  is  an  insupera- 
ble, critical  difficulty.     Dr.  Middleton  observes : — 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  525 

M  It  has  been  deemed  a  safer  expedient  to  attempt  a  construction  dif- 
ferent from  the  received  one,  by  making  the  whole  or  part  of  the  clause 
to  be  merely  a  doxology  in  praise  of  the  Father,  so  that  the  rendering 
will  be  either  '  God,  who  is  over  all,  be  blessed  for  ever,'  or,  beginning 
at  6eog,  *  God  be  blessed  for  ever.'  These  interpretations  also  have  their 
difficulties ;  for  thus  svkayr\Tog  will  properly  want  the  article.  On  the 
first,  however,  of  these  constructions,  it  is  to  be  observed,  that  in  all  the 
doxologies  both  of  the  LXX  and  of  the  New  Testament,  in  which 
sukoyrjrog  is  used,  it  is  placed  at  the  beginning  of  the  sentence :  in  the 
New  Testament  there  are  five  instances,  all  conspiring  to  prove  this 
usage,  and  in  the  LXX  about  forty.  The  same  arrangement  is  ob- 
served in  the  formtda  of  cussing,  in  which  e<if  ixara^ arog  always  precedes 
the  mention  of  the  person  cursed.  The  reading  then  would,  on  this 
construction,  rather  have  been,  euXoyriTog  6  wv  siei  ifuvruv  dzog  ng  rxg 
aiuvag.  Against  the  other  supposed  doxology,  the  objection  is  still 
stronger,  since  that  would  require  us  not  only  to  transpose  svXoyqros,  but 
to  read  'O  Qsog.  Accordingly,  in  all  instances,  where  a  doxology  is 
meant,  we  find  sv\oyv\<rog  o  0so£."  (Doctrine  of  Greek  Article.) 

Whitby  also  remarks  : — 

"  The  words  will  not  admit  of  that  interpunction  and  interpretation  of 
Erasmus,  which  will  do  any  service  to  the  Arians  or  Socinians,  namely, 
that  a  colon  must  be  put  after  the  words  xaratfapxa,  after  the  flesh ;  and 
the  words  following  must  be  an  ecphonema,  and  grateful  exclamation  for 
the  blessings  conferred  upon  the  Jews :  thus,  God,  who  is  over  all,  be 
blessed  for  ever.  For  this  exposition  is  so  harsh,  and  without  any  like 
example  in  the  whole  New  Testament,  that  as  none  of  the  orthodox  ever 
thought  upon  it,  so  I  find  not  that  it  ever  came  into  the  head  of  any 
Arian.  Socinus  himself  rejects  it  for  this  very  good  reason,  that  dso? 
s\ikoyr,<rog,  God  be  blessed,  is  an  unusual  and  unnatural  construction  ;  for, 
wherever  else  these  words  signify  blessed  be  God,  euXoyr\rog  is  put 
before  God,  as  Luke  i,  68  ;  2  Cor.  i,  3  ;  Eph.  i,  3  ;  1  Peter  i,  3  ;  and 
6sog  hath  an  article  prefixed  to  it ;  nor  are  they  ever  immediately  joined 
together  otherwise.  The  phrase  occurs  twenty  times  in  the  Old  Testa, 
ment,  but  in  every  place  s\}\vyr\rog  goes  before,  and  the  article  is  an- 
nexed to  the  word  God,  which  is  a  demonstration  that  this  is  a  perversion 
of  the  sense  of  the  apostle's  words." 

The  critical  discussion  of  this  text  is  farther  pursued  by  the  writers 
just  quoted  ;  by  Dr.  Nares,  in  his  Remarks ;  Mr.  Wardlaw,  in  his 
Discourses ;  Archbishop  Magee,  and  others ;  and  we  may  confidently 
say  of  it,  with  Doddridge,  that  it  is  "  a  memorable  text,  and  contains  a 
proof  of  Christ's  proper  Deity,  which  the  opposers  of  that  doctrine  have 
never  been  able,  nor  will  ever  be  able  to  answer."  So  it  was  considered 
and  quoted  "  by  the  fathers,"  says  Whitby,  "  from  the  beginning  ;  and," 
continues  the  same  commentator,  "  if  these  words  are  spoken  by  the 


526  THEOLOGICAL     INSTITUTES.  |PART 

Spirit  of  God  concerning  Christ,  the  arguments  hence  to  prove  him 
truly  and  properly  God  are  invincible  ;  for,  first,  6  &so;  t<g\  iravrwv,  God 
over  all,  is  the  periphrasis  by  which  all  the  heathen  philosophers  did 
usually  represent  the  supreme  God  ;  and  so  is  God  the  Father  described 
both  in  the  Old  and  New  Testament,  as  6  sin  iravruv,  he  that  is  over  all, 
Eph.  iv,  6.  Secondly,  This  is  the  constant  epithet  and  periphrasis  of 
the  great  God  in  the  Old  Testament,  that  he  is  euXov^ro?  sis  rov  aiwva, 
God  blessed  for  evermore,  1  Chron.  xvi,  36  ;  Psalm  xli,  13,  and  lxxxix, 
52 ;  and  also  in  the  New,  where  he  is  styled  the  God  o?  sdnv  eu\oy*roc: 
sic;  tkj  aiwva£,  who  is  blessed  for  evermore." 

Numerous  other  passages  might  be  cited,  where  Christ  is  called 
"  God  :"  these  only  have  been  selected,  not  merely  because  the  prooi 
does  Aot  rest  upon  the  number  of  Scriptural  testimonies,  but  upon  their 
explicitness ;  but  also  because  they  all  associate  the  term  God,  as  applied 
to  our  Saviour,  with  other  titles,  or  with  circumstances,  which  demon- 
strate  most  fully,  that  that  term  was  used  by  the  inspired  penmen  in  its 
highest  sense  of  true  and  proper  Deity  when  they  applied  it  to  Christ. 
Thus  we  have  seen  it  associated  with  Jehovah ;  with  Lord,  the  New 
Testament  rendering  of  that  ineffable  name ;  with  acts  of  creative 
energy,  as  in  the  introduction  to  the  Gospel  of  St.  John ;  with  the 
supreme  dominion  and  perpetual  stability  of  the  throne  of  the  Son,  in 
the  first  chapter  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews.  In  the  Epistle  to  Titus, 
he  is  called  "  the  great  God ;"  in  1  John,  "  the  true  God,"  and  the 
giver  of  "  eternal  life  ;"  and  in  the  last  text  examined,  his  twofold 
nature  is  distinguished — man,  "  according  to  the  flesh,"  and  in  his  higher 
nature,  God,  "  God  over  all,  blessed  for  evermore."  These  passages 
stand  in  full  refutation  of  both  the  Arian  and  Socinian  heresies.  In 
opposition  to  the  latter,  they  prove  our  Saviour  to  be  more  than  man, 
for  they  assert  him  to  be  God  ;  and  in  opposition  to  the  latter,  they  prove 
that  he  is  God,  not  in  an  inferior  sense,  but  "  the  great  God,"  "  the  true 
God,"  and  "  God  over  all,  blessed  for  evermore." 

I  pass  over,  for  the  sake  of  greater  brevity,  other  titles  more  rarely 
ascribed  to  our  Saviour,  such  as,  the  "  Lord  of  Glory,"  1  Cor.  ii,  8 ; 
"  King  of  kings  and  Lord  of  lords,"  on  which  it  would  be  easy  to 
argue,  that  their  import  falls  nothing  short  of  absolute  Divinity.  A  few 
remarks  on  three  other  titles  of  our  Lord,  of  more  frequent  occurrence, 
may  close  this  branch  of  the  argument.  These  are,  "  King  of  Israel  ;" 
"  Son  of  God  ;"  and  "  The  Word."  The  first  bears  evident  allusion 
to  the  pre-existence  of  Christ,  and  to  his  sovereignty  over  Israel  under 
the  law.  Now,  it  has  been  already  established,  that  the  Jehovah,  "  the 
King  of  the  Jews,"  "  the  Holy  One  of  Israel  our  King,"  "  the  King,  tlie 
Lord  of  Hosts,"  of  the  Old  Testament,  is  not  the  Father ;  but  another 
Divine  Person,  who,  in  the  New  Testament,  is  affirmed  to  have  been 
Jesus  Christ.     This  being  the  view  of  the  sacred  writers  of  the  evan 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL   INSTITUTES.  527 

gelical  dispensation,  it  is  clear  that  they  could  not  use  the  appellation 
"  The  King  of  Israel"  in  a  lower  sense  than  that  in  which  it  stands 
in  the  Old  Testament ;  and  there,  indisputably,  even  by  the  confession 
of  opponents,  it  is  collocated  with  titles,  and  attributes,  and  works  which 
unequivocally  mark  a  Divine  character.  It  is  with  clear  reference  to 
this  his  peculiar  property  in  the  Jewish  people  that  St.  John  says,  "  He 
came  unto  his  own,  and  his  own  received  him  not ;  a  declaration  which 
is  scarcely  sense,  if  Judea  was  in  no  higher  a  meaning  his  own  country 
(5)  than  it  was  the  country  of  any  other  person  who  happened  to  be 
born  there ;  for  it  is,  surely,  a  strange  method  of  expressing  the  simple 
fact  that  he  was  born  a  Jew,  (were  nothing  more  intended,)  to  say  that 
he  came  into  his  own  country,  for  this  every  person  does  at  his  birth, 
wherever  he  is  born.  Nor  is  it  any  aggravation  of  the  guilt  of  the 
Jews,  that  they  rejected  merely  a  countryman,  since  that  circumstance 
gave  him  no  greater  claim  than  that  of  any  other  Jew  to  be  received  as 
the  Messiah.  The  force  of  the  remark  lies  in  this,  that  whereas  the 
prophets  had  declared  that  "  the  King  of  Israel,"  "  the  Lord  of  hosts," 
u  Jehovah,"  should  become  incarnate,  and  visit  his  own  people ;  and 
that  Jesus  had  given  sufficient  evidence  that  he  was  that  predicted  and 
expected  personage  ;  yet  the  Jews,  "  his  own  people"  and  inheritance, 
rejected  him.  The  same  notion  is  conveyed  in  our  Lord's  parable, 
when  the  Jews  are  made  to  say  "  this  is  the  heir,"  he  in  whom  the 
right  is  vested  :  "  let  us  kill  him,  and  the  inheritance  shall  be  ours."  (6) 

It  is  sufficient,  however,  here  to  show,  that  the  title  *'  King  of  Israel" 
was  understood,  by  the  Jews,  to  imply  Divinity.  Nathanael  exclaims, 
"Rabbi,  thou  art  the  Son  of  God,  thou  art  the  King  of  Israel.' 
This  was  said  upon  such  a  proof  of  his  Messiahship  as,  from  his  ac- 
quaintance with  some  matter  private  to  Nathanael  alone  when  he  was 
"  under  the  fig  tree,"  was  a  full  demonstration  of  omniscience :  a  cir- 
cumstance which  also  determines  the  Divine  import  of  "  Son  of  God,5* 
the  title  which  is  here  connected  with  it.  Both  were  certainly  under- 
stood by  Nathanael  to  imply  an  assumption  of  Godhead. 

"  *  As  our  Saviour  hung  upon  the  cross,'  says  St.  Matthew,  '  they  that 
passed  by  reviled  him,  wagging  their  heads  and  saying,  Thou  that 
destroyest  the  temple  and  buildest  it  in  three  days,  save  thyself;  if  thou 
be  the  Son  of  God,  come  down  from  the  cross.  Likewise  also  the 
chief  priests  mocking  him,  with  the  scribes  and  elders,  said,  He  saved 
others ;  himself  he  cannot  save.     If  he  be  the  King  of  Israel,  let 

(5)  •■  He  camo  into  his  own  country,  and  hie  countrymen  received  him  not." 
(Capp's  Version.) 

(6)  Venit  ad  sua,  et  sui  non  receperunt  earn,  id  est,  venit  ad  possessionem 
suam,  et  qui  possessioiiis  ipsius  erant,  eum  non  receperunt :  quod  explicatur, 
Matt,  xxi,  ubi  filius  dicitur  missus  ad  ecclesiam  Judaicam  e*j  K^npovfot  us  rt/v 
rtvpovppiav  aur».  (Ludov.  de  Dieu,  in  loc.) 


528  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PAUT 

him  now  come  down  from  the  cross,  and  we  will  believe  him.  He 
trusted  in  God ;  let  him  deliver  him  now,  if  he  will  have  him :  for  he 
said,  I  am  the  Son  of  God.  The  thieves  also  which  were  crucified 
with  him,  cast  the  same  in  his  teeth.  [One  of  them  saying,  If  thou 
be  Christ,  save  thyself  and  us ;  but  the  other  said  unto  Jesus,  Lord, 
remember  me,  when  thou  comest  into  thy  kingdom."]  [And  the  soldiers 
also  mocked  him,  coming  to  him,  and  offering  him  vinegar,  and  saying, 
If  thou  be  the  King  of  the  Jews,  save  thyself.]  Now  when  the 
centurion,  and  they  that  were  with  him  watching  Jesus,  saw  the  earth 
quake,  and  those  things  that  were  done,  they  feared  greatly,  saying, 
[Certainly  this  was  a  righteous  man,~\  truly  this  was  the  Son  of  God.' 
Here  we  see  the  Jews,  and  the  Gentiles  residents  among  them,  uniting  to 
speak  in  a  language  that  stamps  Divinity  upon  the  title  used  by  them 
both.  The  Jewish  passengers  upon  the  road  over  the  top  of  Calvary, 
stood  still  near  the  cross  of  our  Saviour,  insultingly  to  nod  at  him,  to 
reproach  him  with  his  assumed  appellative  of  the  Son  of  God,  and  to 
challenge  him  to  an  exertion  of  that  Divinity  which  both  he  and  they 
affixed  to  it,  by  coming  down  from  the  cross,  and  saving  himself  from 
death.  The  elders,  the  scribes,  and  the  chief  priests,  equally  insulted 
him  with  the  same  assumption,  and  equally  challenged  him  to  the 
same  exertion,  calling  upon  him  now  to  show  he  was  truly  the  King 
of  Israel,  or  the  Lord  and  Sovereign  of  their  nation  in  all  ages,  by 
putting  forth  the  power  of  his  Divine  royalty,  and  coming  down  from  the 
cross."  (Whitaker's  Origin  of  Arianism.) 

Such  is  the  testimony  of  the  Jews  to  the  sense  in  which  our  Saviour 
applied  these  titles  to  himself.  The  title  "  Son  of  God"  demands, 
however,  a  larger  consideration,  various  attempts  having  been  made  to 
•restrain  its  significance,  in  direct  opposition  to  this  testimony,  to  the 
mere  humanity  of  our  Saviour,  and  to  rest  its  application  upon  his 
miraculous  conception. 

It  is  true,  that  this  notion  is  held  by  some  who  hesitate  not  to  acknow- 
ledge, that  Jesus  Christ  is  a  Divine  person  ;  but,  by  denying  his  Deity 
as  "  The  Son  of  God,"  they  both  depart  from  the  faith  of  the  Church 
of  Christ  in  the  earliest  times,  and  give  up  to  the  Socinians  the  whole 
argument  for  the  Divinity  of  Christ  which  is  founded  upon  that  eminent 
appellation.  On  this  account,  so  frequent  and  indeed  so  general  a  title 
of  our  Lord  deserves  to  be  more  particularly  considered,  that  the  foun- 
dation which  it  lays  for  the  demonstration  of  the  Divinity  of  Christ  may 
not  be  unthinkingly  relinquished ;  and  that  a  door  of  error,  which  has 
been  unconsciously  opened  by  the  vague  reasonings  of  men,  in  other 
respects  orthodox,  may  be  closed  by  the  authority  of  Holy  Writ. 

That  the  title,  "  Son  of  God,"  was  applied  to  Christ  is  a  fact.  His 
disciples,  occasionally  before  and  frequently  after  his  resurrection,  give 
him  this  appellation ;   he  assumes  it  himself;  and  it  was  indignantly 


SECOND  J  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  529 

denied  to  him  by  the  Jews,  who,  by  that  very  denial,  acknowledge  that 
it  was  claimed  in  its  highest  sense  by  him,  and  by  his  disciples  for  him. 
The  question  therefore  is,  what  this  title  imported. 

Those  who  think  that  it  was  assumed  by  Christ,  and  given  to  him  by 
his  disciples,  because  of  his  miraculous  conception,  are  obviously  in 
error.  Our  Lord,  when  he  adopts  the  appellation,  never  urges  his  mira- 
culous birth  as  a  proof  of  his  Sonship  ;  on  the  contrary,  this  is  a  subject 
on  which  he  preserves  a  total  silence,  and  the  Jews  were  left  to  consider 
him  as  "  the  son  of  Joseph ;"  and  to  argue  from  his  being  born  at 
"  Nazareth,"  as  they  supposed,  that  he  could  not  be  the  Messiah :  so 
ignorant  were  they  of  the  circumstances  of  his  birth,  and,  therefore,  of 
the  manner  of  his  conception. 

Again,  our  Lord  calls  God  his  Father,  and  grounds  the  proof  of  it 
upon  his  miracles.  The  Jews,  too,  clearly  conceived,  that,  in  making 
this  profession  of  Sonship  with  reference  to  God,  he  assumed  a  Divine 
character,  and  made  himself  "  equal  with  God.",  They  therefore  took 
up  stones  to  stone  him.  In  that  important  argument  between  our  Lord 
and  the  Jews,  in  which  his  great  object  was  to  establish  the  point,  that, 
in  a  peculiar  sense,  God  was  his  Father,  there  is  no  reference  at  all  to 
the  miraculous  conception.  On  the  contrary,  the  title  "  Son  of  God,?* 
is  assumed  by  Christ  on  a  ground  totally  different ;  and  it  is  disputed 
by  the  Jews,  not  by  their  questioning  or  denying  the  fact,  that  he  was 
miraculously  conceived,  but  on  the  assumed  impossibility,  that  he,  being 
a  man,  should  be  equal  to  God,  which  they  affirmed  that  title  to  import. 

Nor  did  the  disciples  themselves  give  him  this  title  with  referenee  to 
his  conception  by  the  Holy  Ghost.  Certain  it  is,  that  Nathanael.  did 
not  know  the  circumstances  of  his  birth  ;  for  he  was  announced  to  him 
by  Philip  as  Jesus  of  Nazareth,  "  the  son  of  Joseph ;"  and  he  asks, 
"  Can  any  good  thing  come  out  of  Nazareth  V  He  did  not  know,  there- 
fore, but  that  Jesus  was  the  son  of  Joseph  ;  he  knew  nothing  of  his  being 
bom  at  Bethlehem,  and  yet  he  confesses  him  to  be  "  the  Son  of  God, 
and  the  King  of  Israel." 

It  may  also  be  observed,  that,  in  the  celebrated  confession  of  Peter, 
"  Thou  art  the  Christ,  the  Son  of  the  living  God,"  there  is  no  refer- 
ence at  all  to  the  miraculous  conception ;  a  fact  at  that  time,  probably, 
not  known  even  to  the  apostles,  and  one  of  the  things  which  Mary  kept 
and  pondered  in  her  heart,  till  the  Spirit  was  given,  and  the  full  revela- 
tion of  Christ  was  made  to  the  apostles.  But,  even  if  the  miraculous 
conception  were  known  to  St.  Peter,  it  is  clear,  from  the  answer  of  our 
Lord  to  him,  that  it  formed  no  part  of  the  ground  on  which  he  confessed 
"  the  Son  of  Man"  to  be  the  "  Son  of  God  ;"  for  our  Lord  replies, 
"  Blessed  art  thou,  Simon  Barjona,  for  flesh  and  blood  hath  not  revealed 
this*  unto  tKee,  but  my  Father  which  is  in  heaven."  He  had  been 
specially  taught  this  doctrine  of  the  Sonship  of  Christ  by  God,    an 

Vol.1.  34 


530  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  |TART 

unnecessary  thing,  certainly,  if  the  miraculous  conception  had  been  the 
only  ground  of  that  Sonship ;  for  the  evidence  of  that  fact  might  have 
been  collected  from  Christ  and  the  Virgin  Mother,  and  there  was  no 
apparent  necessity  of  a  revelation  from  the  Father  so  particular,  a 
teaching  so  special,  as  that  mentioned  in  our  Lord's  reply,  and  which  is 
given  as  an  instance  of  the  peculiar  "  blessedness"  of  Simon  Barjona. 

This  ground,  therefore,  not  being  tenable,  it  has  been  urged,  that 
"Son  of  God"  was  simply  an  appellation  of  Messiah,  and  was  so  used 
among  the  Jews ;  in  other  words,  that  it  is  an  official  designation,  and 
not  a  'personal  one.  Against  this,  however,  the  evangelic  history  affords 
decisive  proof.  That  the  Messiah  was  to  be  the  Jehovah  of  the  Old 
Testament,  is  plain  from  the  texts  adduced  in  a  former  chapter,  and 
this,  therefore,  is  to  be  considered  the  faith  of  the  ancient  Jewish  Church. 
It  is  however  certain,  that,  at  the  period  of  our  Lord's  advent,  and  for 
many  years  previously,  the  learned  among  the  Jews  had  mingled  much 
of  the  philosophy  whidh  they  had  learned  from  the  heathen  schools  with 
their  theological  speculation ;  and  that  their  writings  present  often  a 
singular  compound  of  crude  metaphysical  notions,  allegories,  cabalistic 
mysteries,  and,  occasionally,  great  and  sublime  truths.  The  age  of  our 
Lord  was  an  age  of  great  religious  corruption  and  error.  The  Saddu- 
cees  were  materialists  and  skeptics ;  and  the  Pharisees  had  long  culti- 
vated the  opinion,  that  the  Messiah  was  to  be  a  temporal  monarch,  a 
notion  which  served  to  vitiate  their  conceptions  of  his  character  and 
office,  and  to  darken  all  the  prophecies.  Two  things,  however,  amidst 
all  this  confusion  of  opinions,  and  this  prevalence  of  great  errors,  appear 
exceedingly  clear  from  the  evangelists: — 1.  That  the  Jews  recognized 
the  existence  of  such  a  being  as  the  "  Son  of  God ;"  and  that,  for  any 
person  to  profess  to  be  the  Son  of  God,  in  this  peculiar  sense,  was  to 
commit  blasphemy.  2.  That  for  a  person  to  profess  to  be  the  Messiah 
simply  was  not  considered  blasphemy,  and  did  not  exasperate  the  Jews 
to  take  up  stones  to  stone  the  offender.  Our  Lord  certainly  professed 
to  be  the  Messiah  ;  many  of  the  Jews  also,  at  different  times,  believed 
on  him  as  such ;  and  yet,  as  appears  from  St.  John's  Gospel,  these 
same  Jews,  who  ':  believed"  on  him  as  Messiah,  were  not  only  "  offend- 
ed," but  took  up  stones  to  stone  him  as  a  blasphemer  when  he  declared 
himself  to  be  the  "  Son  of  God,"  and  that  God  was  his  "  proper  Father." 
It  follows  from  these  facts,  that  the  Jews  of  our  Lord's  times,  generally, 
having  been  perverted  from  the  faith  of  their  ancestors,  did  not  expect 
the  second  person  of  the  trinity,  "  the  Son  of  God,"  the  Divine  Memra, 
or  Logos,  to  be  the  Messiah.  Others,  indeed,  had  a  dim  and  uninfiu- 
ential  apprehension  of  this  truth  ;  there  were  who  indulged  various 
other  speculations  on  the  subject ;  but  the  true  doctrine  was  only  retained 
among  the  faithful  few,  as  Simeon,  who  explicitly  ascribes  Divinity  to 
the   Messiah,  whom  he  held  in  his  arms ;   Nathanael,  who  connects 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES.  531 

"Sox  ok  God  and  King  of  Israel"  together,  one  the  designation  of 
the  Divine  nature,  the  other  of  the  office  of  Messiah  ;  and  the  apostles 
of  our  Lord,  whose  minds  were  gradually  opened  to  this  mystery  of 
faith,  and  brought  off  from  the  vulgar  notion  of  the  civil  character  and 
mere  human  nature  and  human  work  of  Messiah,  by  the  inspiration 
and  teaching  of  God — "  flesh  and  blood  did  not  reveal  it  to  them,  but 
the  Father" 

We  cannot,  therefore,  account  for  the  use  of  the  title"  Son  of  God," 
among  the  Jews  of  our  Lord's  time,  whether  by  his  disciples  or  his 
enemies,  by  considering  it  as  synonymous  with  "  Messiah."  The  Jews 
regarded  the  former  as  necessarily  involving  a  claim  to  Divinity,  but  not 
the  latter ;  and  the  disciples  did  not  conceive  that  they  fully  confessed 
their  Master,  by  calling  him  the  Messiah,  without  adding  to  it  his  higher 
personal  designation.  "  Thou  art  the  Christ,"  says  St.  Peter  ;  but  he 
adds,  "  the  Son  of  the  living  God  :"  just  as  Nathanael,  under  the 
influence  of  a  recent  proof  of  his  omniscience,  and,  consequently,  of  his 
Divinity,  salutes  him,  first,  as  "  Son  of  God,"  and,  then,  as  Messiah, 
"  King  of  Israel." 

We  are  to  seek  for  the  origin  of  the  title,  "  The  Son  of  God,"  in  the 
Scriptures  of  the  Old  Testament,  where  a  Divine  Son  is  spoken  of,  in 
i*s,  some  of  which  have  reference  to  him  as  Messiah  also,  and  in 
others  which  have  no  such  reference.  In  both,  however,  we  shall  find 
that  it  was  a  personal  designation ;  a  name  of  revelation,  not  of  office : 
that  it  was  essential  in  him  to  be  a  Son,  and  accidental  only  that  he  was 
the  Messiah;  that  he  was  the  first  by  nature,  the  second  by  appoint- 
ment; and  that,  in  constant  association  with  the  name  of  "  Son,"  as 
given  to  him  alone,  and  in  a  sense  which  shuts  out  all  creatures,  however 
exalted,  are  found  ideas  and  circumstances  of  full  and  absolute  Divinity. 

Under  the  designation  "  Son,"  Son  of  God,  he  is  introduced  in  the 
second  Psalm:  "The  Lord  hath  said  unto  me,  Thou  art  my  Son ; 
this  day  have  I  begotten  thee."  From  apostolic  authority  we  know, 
that  the  "  Son,"  here  introduced  as  speaking,  is  Christ ;  this  application 
to  him  being  explicitly  made  at  least  twice  in  the  New  Testament. 
Now,  if  we  should  allow,  with  some,  that "  the  day"  here  spoken  of  is 
the  day  of  Christ's  resurrection,  and  should  interpret  his  being  "  begot- 
ten" of  the  Father  of  the  act  itself  of  raising  him  from  the  dead,  it  is 
clear,  that  the  miraculous  conception  of  Christ  is  not,  in  this  passage, 
laid  down  as  the  ground  of  his  Sonship.  The  reference  is  clearly  made 
to  another  transaction,  namely,  his  resurrection.  So  far  this  passage, 
thus  interpreted,  furnishes  an  instance  in  which  the  Messiah  is  called 
"  The  Son  of  God,"  on  some  ground  entirely  independent  of  the  mode 
of  his  incarnation.  But  he  is  so  frequently  called  the  Son,  where  there 
is  no  reference  even  to  his  resurrection,  that  this  cannot  be  considered 
as  the  ground  of  that  relation;    and,  indeed,  the  point  is  sufficiently 


532  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

settled  by  St.  Paul,  who,  in  his  Epistle  to  the  Romans,  tells  us,  that  the 
resurrection  of  Christ  was  the  declaration  of  his  Sonship,  not  the  ground 
of  it — "  declared  to  be  the  Son  of  God  with  power,  by  the  resurrection 
from  the  dead."  We  perceive,  too,  from  the  Psalm,  that  the  mind  of 
the  inspired  writer  is  filled  with  ideas  of  his  Divinity,  of  his  claims,  and 
of  his  works  as  God.  This  Son  the  nations  of  the  earth  are  called  to 
"  kiss,  lest  he  be  angry,  and  they  perish  from  the  way  ;"  and  every  one 
is  pronounced  blessed  who  "  putteth  his  trust  in  him  ;"  a  declaration 
of  unequivocal  Divinity,  because  found  in  a  book  which  pronounces 
every  man  cursed  "  who  trusteth  in  man,  and  makethjlesh  his  arm." 

"  It  is  obvious,  at  first  view,  that  the  high  titles  and  honours  ascribed 
in  this  Psalm  to  the  extraordinary  person  who  is  the  chief  subject  of  it, 
far  transcend  any  thing  that  is  ascribed  in  Scripture  to  any  mere  crea- 
ture :  but  if  the  Psalm  be  inquired  into  more  narrowly,  and  compared 
with  parallel  prophecies  ;  if  it  be  duly  considered,  that  not  only  is  the 
extraordinary  person  here  spoken  of  called  the  Son  of  God,  but  that 
title  is  so  ascribed  to  him  as  to  imply,  that  it  belongs  to  him  in  a  manner 
that  is  absolutely  singular,  and  peculiar  to  himself,  seeing  he  is  said  to 
be  begotten  of  God,  (verse  12,)  and  is  called  by  way  of  eminence,  the 
Son  ;  (verse  12 ;)  that  the  danger  of  provoking  him  to  anger  is  spoken 
of  in  so  very  different  a  manner  from  what  the  Scripture  uses  in  speak, 
ing  of  the  anger  of  any  mere  creature  ;  'Kiss  the  Son,  lest  he  be  angry, 
and  ye  perish  from  the  way,  when  his  wrath  is  kindled  but  a  little  ;' 
that  when  the  kings  and  judges  of  the  earth  are  commanded  to  serve 
God  with  fear,  they  are,  at  the  same  time,  commanded  to  kiss  the  Son, 
which,  in  those  times  and  places,  was  frequently  an  expression  of  adora- 
tion ;  and  particularly  that  whereas  other  scriptures  contain  awful  and 
just  threatenings  against  those  who  trust  in  any  mere  man,  the  psalmist 
expressly  calls  them  blessed  who  trust  in  the  Son  here  spoken  of:  all 
these  things,  taken  together  and  compared  with  the  other  prophecies, 
make  up  a  character  of  Divinity  ;  as,  on  the  other  hand,  when  it  is  said 
that  God  would  set  this  his  Son  as  his  king  on  his  holy  hill  of  Zion,  (verse 
6,)  these  and  various  other  expressions  in  this  Psalm  contain  characters 
of  the  subordination  which  was  to  be  appropriated  to  that  Divine  person 
who  was  to  be  incarnate."  (Maclaurin's  Essay  on  the  Prophecies.) 

Neither  the  miraculous  conception  of  Christ,  nor  yet  his  resurrection 
from  the  dead,  is,  therefore,  the  foundation  of  his  being  called  the  Son 
of  God  in  this  Psalm.  Not  the  first,  for  there  is  no  allusion  to  it ;  not 
the  second,  for  he  was  declared  from  heaven  to  be  the  "  beloved  Son" 
of  the  Father  at  his  very  entrance  upon  his  ministry,  and,  consequently, 
before  the  resurrection ;  and  also,  because  the  very  apostle  who  applies 
the  prediction  to  the  resurrection  of  Christ,  explicitly  states,  that  even 
that  was  a  declaration  of  an  antecedent  Sonship.  It  is  also  to  be  noted, 
that,  in  the  first  chapter  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  St.  Paul  insti 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  533 

tutes  an  argument  upon  this  very  passage  in  the  second  Psalm,  to  prove 
the  superiority  of  Christ  to  the  angels.  "  For  unto  which  of  the  angels 
said  he  at  any  time,  Thou  art  my  Sox,  this  day  have  I  begotten  thee  ?" 
•  The  force  of  this  argument  lies  in  the  expression  '  begotten,'  import, 
ing  that  the  person  addressed  is  the  Son  of  God,  not  by  creation,  but  by 
generation.  Christ's  pre-eminence  over  the  angels  is  here  stated  to 
consist  in  this,  that  whereas  they  were  created,  he  is  begotten ;  and  the 
apostle's  reasoning  is  fallacious,  unless  this  expression  intimates  a 
proper  and  peculiar  filiation."  (7)  "  He  hath  obtained,"  says  Bishop 
Hall,  "  a  more  excellent  name  than  the  angels,  namely,  to  be  called  and 
to  be  the  Son  of  God,  not  by  grace  and  adoption  ;  but  by  nature  and 
communication  of  essence."  This  argument  from  Christ's  superiority 
to  all  creatures,  even  the  most  exalted,  shows  the  sentiment  of  St. 
Paul  as  to  Divinity  being  implied  in  the  title  Son,  given  to  the  Messiah 
in  the  second  Psalm.  In  this  several  of  the  ancient  Jewish  commenta- 
tors agree  with  him  ;  and  here  we  see  one  of  the  sources  from  which  the 
Jews  derived  their  notion  of  the  existence  of  a  Divine  Son  of  God. 

Though  the  above  argument  stands  independent  of  the  interpretations 
which  have  been  given  to  the  clause  "  this  day  have  I  begotten  thee," 
the  following  passage  from  Witsius,  in  some  parts  of  its  argument,  has 
great  weight : — 

"  But  we  cannot  so  easily  concede  to  our  adversaries,  that,  by  the 
generation  of  Christ,  mentioned  in  the  second  Psalm,  his  resurrection 
from  the  dead  is  intended,  and  that  by  this  day,  we  are  to  understand 
the  day  on  which  God,  having  raised  him  from  the  dead,  appointed  him 
the  King  of  his  Church.  For,  1.  To  beget  signifies  nowhere  in  the 
sacred  volume  to  rescue  from  death ;  and  we  are  not  at  liberty  to  coin 
new  significations  of  words.  2.  Though,  possibly,  it  were  used  in  that 
metaphorical  acceptation,  (which,  however,  is  not  yet  proved,)  it  cannot 
be  understood  in  this  passage  in  any  other  than  its  proper  sense.  It  is 
here  adduced  as  a  reason  for  which  Christ  is  called  the  Son  of  God. — 
Now  Christ  is  the  Son  of  God,  not  figuratively,  but  properly ;  for  the 
Father  is  called  his  proper  Father,  and  he  himself  is  denominated  the 
proper  Son  of  the  Father,  by  which  designation  he  is  distinguished  from 
those  who  are  his  sons  in  a  metaphorical  sense.  3.  These  words  are 
spoken  to  Christ  with  a  certain  emphasis,  with  which  they  would  not 
have  been  addressed  to  any  of  the  angels,  much  less  to  any  of  mankind  ; 
but  if  they  meant  nothing  more  than  the  raising  of  him  from  the  dead, 
they  would  attribute  nothing  to  Christ  which  he  doth  not  possess  in 
common  with  many  others,  who,  in  like  manner,  are  raised  up  by  the 
power  of  God,  to  glory  and  an  everlasting  kingdom.     4.  Christ  raised 

(7)  Holden's  Testimonies.  "  Non  dicit  Deus  adoptavi,  Bed  generavi  te  :  quod 
communjcationem  ejusdem  essentia?  et  naturae  divines  signincat,  modo  tameu 
prorsu  ineffabile."  (Michaelis.) 


534  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

himself  from  the  dead,  too,  by  his  own  power ;  from  which  it  would 
follow,  according  to  this  interpretation,  that  he  begat  himself,  and  that 
he  is  his  own  son.  5.  It  is  not  true,  in  fine,  that  Christ  was  not 
begotten  of  the  Father,  nor  called  his  Son,  till  that  very  day  on  which 
he  was  raised  from  the  dead ;  for,  as  is  abundantly  manifest  from  the 
Gospel  history,  he  often,  when  yet  alive,  professed  himself  the  Son  of 
God,  and  was  often  acknowledged  as  such.  6.  To-day  refers  to  time„ 
when  human  concerns  are  in  question ;  but  this  expression,  when 
applied  to  Divine  things,  must  be  understood  in  a  sense  suitable  to  the 
majesty  of  the  Godhead.  And,  if  any  word  may  be  transferred  from 
time,  to  denote  eternity,  which  is  the  complete  and  perfect  possession, 
at  once,  of  an  interminable  life,  what  can  be  better  adapted  to  express 
its  unsuccessive  duration  than  the  term  to-day  ?  Nor  can  our  adversa- 
ries derive  any  support  to  their  cause  from  the  words  of  Paul,  Acts  xiii, 
32,  33,  '  And  we  declare  unto  you  glad  tidings,  how  that  the  promise 
which  was  made  unto  the  fathers,  God  hath  fulfilled  the  same  unto  us, 
their  children,  in  that  he  hath  raised  up  Jesus,  as  it  is  also  written  in  the 
second  Psalm,  Thou  art  my  Son,  this  day  have  I  begotten  thee.'     For, 

1.  Paul  doth  not  here  prove  the  resurrection  of  Jesus  from  the  dead, 
from  this  expression  in  the  second  Psalm  (which,  though  it  describes 
him  who  is  raised  again,  doth  not  prove  his  resurrection,)  but  from 
Isaiah  iv,  3,  and  Psalm  xvi,  10 ;  while  he  adds,  (verses  34  and  35,) 
'And    as  concerning   that  he    raised   him    up    from   the   dead,'    &c. 

2.  The  words  '  raised  up  Jesus,'  do  not  even  relate  to  the  resur- 
rection of  Jesus  from  the  dead,  but  to  the  exhibition  of  him  as  a 
Saviour.  This  raising  of  him  up  is  expressly  distinguished  from  the 
raising  of  him  again  from  the  dead,  which  is  subsequently  spoken  of, 
verse  34.  The  meaning  is,  that  God  fulfilled  the  promise  made  to  the 
fathers,  when  he  exhibited  Christ  to  mankind  in  the  flesh.  But  what 
was  that  promise  ?  This  appears  from  the  second  Psalm,  where  God 
promises  to  the  Church,  that,  in  due  time,  he  would  anoint,  as  King 
over  her,  his  own  Son,  begotten  of  himself  to-day  ;  that  is,  from  eter- 
nity to  eternity,  for  with  God  there  is  a  perpetual  to-day.  Grotius, 
whose  name  is  not  offensive  to  our  opposers,  has  remarked,  that  Luke 
makes  use  of  the  same  word  to  signify  exhibiting,  in  Acts  ii,  30  ;  Hi,  26. 
To  these  we  add  another  instance  from  chap,  vii,  37  :  '  A  prophet  shall 
the  Lord  your  God  raise  up  unto  you.'  3.  Were  we  to  admit,  that  the 
words  of  the  Psalm  are  applied  to  the  resurrection  of  Christ,  which 
seemed  proper  to  Calvin,  Cameron,  and  several  other  Protestant  divines, 
the  sense  will  only  be  this,  that,  by  his  being  thus  raised  up  again,  it 
was  declared  and  demonstrated,  that  Christ  is  the  Son  of  the  Father, 
begotten  of  him  from  everlasting.  The  Jewish  council  condemned  him 
for  blasphemy,  because  he  had  called  himself  the  Son  of  God.  But,  by 
raising  him  again  from  the  grave,  after  he  had  been  put  to  death  as  a 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL   INSTITUTES.  535 

blasphemer,  God  acquitted  him  from  that  charge,  and  publicly  recog- 
nized him  as  his  only -begotten  Son.  Thus  he  was  declared,  exhibited, 
and  distinguislied  as  the  Son  of  God  with  power,  expressly  and  parti- 
cularly,  to  the  entire  exclusion  of  all  others.  The  original  word  here 
employed  by  the  apostles  is  remarkably  expressive  ;  and,  as  Ludovicus 
de  Dieu  has  learnedly  observed,  it  signifies  that  Christ  was  placed 
between  such  bounds,  and  so  separated  and  discriminated  from  others, 
that  he  neither  should  nor  can  be  judged  to  be  any  one  else  than  the 
Son  of  God.  The  expression  '  with  power,'  may  be  joined  with 
'  declared  ;'  and  then  the  meaning  will  be  that  he  was  shown  to  be  the 
Son  of  God  by  a  powerful  argument.  Or  it  may  be  connected  with 
the  '  Son  of  God ;'  and  then  it  will  intimate  that  he  is  the  Son  of  God 
in  the  most  ample  and  exalted  sense  of  which  the  term  is  susceptible ; 
so  that  this  name,  when  ascribed  to  him,  is  '  a  more  excellent  name' 
than  any  that  is  given  to  the  noblest  of  creatures."  (Witsius's  Disser- 
tations on  Hie  Creed.) 

Solomon,  in  Proverbs  viii,  22,  introduces  not  the  personified,  but  the 
personal  wisdom  of  God,  under  the  same  relation  of  a  Son,  and  in  that 
relation  ascribes  to  him  Divine  attributes.  This  was  another  source 
of  the  notion  which  obtained  among  the  ancient  Jews,  that  there  was 
a  Divine  Son  of  God. 

"  Jehovah  possessed  me  in  the  beginning  of  his  way. 
Before  his  works  of  old. 
I  was  anointed  from  everlasting, 
From  the  beginning,  before  the  world  was, 
When  there  were  no  depths,  I  was  born,"  &c.  (8) 

Here,  "  from  considering  the  excellence  of  wisdom,  the  transition  is 
easy  to  the  undefiled  source  of  it.  Abstract  wisdom  now  disappears, 
and  the  inspired  writer  proceeds  to  the  delineation  of  a  Divine  Being, 
who  is  portrayed  in  colours  of  such  splendour  and  majesty,  as  can  be 
attributed  to  no  other  than  the  eternal  Son  of  God."  (Holders  Trans- 
lation of  Proverbs.)  "Jehovah  possessed  me  in  the  beginning  of  his 
way."  "  The  Father  possessed  the  Son,  had,  or.  as  it  were,  acquired 
him  by  an  eternal  generation.  To  say  of  the  attribute  wisdom,  that 
God  possessed  it  in  the  beginning  of  his  work  of  creation,  is  trifling  ; 
certainly  it  is  too  futile  an  observation  to  fall  from  any  sensible  writer ; 
how,  then,  can  it  be  attributed  to  the  wise  monarch  of  Israel  ?"  (Hoi- 
den's  Translation  of  Proverbs.)  "  I  was  anointed  from  everlasting." — 
"  Can  it,  with  propriety,  be  said  of  an  attribute,  that  it  was  anointed, 
invested  with  power  and  authority  from  everlasting  ?  In  what  way, 
literal  or  figurative,  can  the  expression  be  predicated  of  a  quality  ?  But 
't  is  strictly  applicable  to  the  Divine  Logos,  who  was  anointed  by  the 

(8)  Holden's  Translation  of  Proverbs.  In  the  notes  to  chapter  viii,  the  appli- 
cation of  this  description  of  wisdom  to  Christ  is  ably  and  learnedly  defended. 


THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

effusion  of  the  Spirit ;  who  was  invested  with  power  and  dignity  from 
everlasting ;  and  who,  from  all  eternity,  derived  his  existence  and 
essence  from  the  Father ;  for  in  him  '  dwelleth  all  the  fulness  of  the  God- 
head bodily.'  "  (Holders  Translation  of  Proverbs.) 

It  is  a  confirmation  of  the  application  of  Solomon's  description  of 
wisdom  to  the  second  person  of  the  Trinity,  that  the  ancient  Jewish 
writers,  (Philo  among  the  number,)  as  Allix  has  shown,  (Judgment  of  the 
Jewish  Church,)  speak  of  the  generation  of  Wisdom,  and  by  that  term 
mean  "  the  Word,"  a  personal  appellation  so  familiar  to  them.  Nor  is 
there  any  thing  out  of  the  common  course  of  the  thinking  of  the  an- 
cient Hebrews  in  these  passages  of  Solomon,  when  applied  to  the  per- 
sonal wisdom ;  since  he,  as  we  have  seen,  must,  like  them,  have  been 
well  enough  acquainted  with  a  distinction  of  persons  in  the  Trinity,  and 
knew  Jehovah,  their  Lawgiver  and  King,  under  the  title  of  "  the  Word 
of  the  Lord,"  as  the  Maker  of  all  things,  and  the  Revealer  of  his  will, 
in  a  word,  as  Divine,  and  yet  distinct  from  the  Father.  The  relation 
in  the  Godhead  of  Father  and  Son  was  not,  therefore,  to  the  Jews  an 
unrevealed  mystery,  and  sufficiently  accounts  for  the  ideas  of  Divinity 
which  they,  in  the  days  of  Christ,  connected  with  the  appellation  Son 
of  God. 

This  relation  is  most  unequivocally  expressed  in  the  prophecy  of 
Micah,  chap,  v,  2,  "  But  thou,  Bethlehem  Ephratah,  though  thou  be 
little  among  the  thousands  of  Judah,  yet  out  of  thee  shall  he  come  forth 
unto  me  that  is  to  be  ruler  in  Israel ;  whose  goings  forth  have  been  from 
of  old,  from  everlasting  ;"  or,  as  it  is  in  the  margin,  "  from  the  days  of 
eternity."  (9)  Here  the  person  spoken  of  is  said  to  have  had  a  twofold 
birth,  or  "going  forth."  (1)  By  a  natural  birth  he  came  forth  from 
Bethlehem  to  Judah ;  by  another  and  a  higher,  he  was  from  the  days 
of  eternity.  One  is  opposed  to  the  other ;  but  the  last  is  carried  into 
eternity  itself  by  words  which  most  clearly  intimate  an  existence  prior 
to  the  birth  in  Bethlehem,  and  that  an  eternal  one  :  while  the  term  used 
and  translated  his  "  goings  forth,"  conveys  precisely  the  same  idea  as 
the  eternal  generation  of  the  Son  of  God.     "The  passage  carefully 

(9)  So  the  LXX,  and  the  Vulgate,  and  the  critics  generally.  M  Antiquissima 
erit  origine,  ab  reternis  temporibus."  (Dathe.)  "  Imo  a  diebus  roternitatis,  i.e. 
priusquam  natus  fuerit,  jam  ab  ceterno  extitit."  (Rosenmuller.) 

(1)  The  word  £121  to  come  forth,  is  used  in  reference  to  birth  frequently,  as 
Gen.  xvii,  6 ;  2  Kings  xx,  18 ;  and  so  the  Pharisees  understood  it,  when  referring 
to  this  passage,  in  answer  to  Herod's  inquiry,  where  Christ  should  be  "  born." — 
The  plural  form,  his  "  goings  forth"  from  eternity,  denotes  eminency.  To  sig- 
nify the  perfection  and  excellency  of  that  generation,  the  word  for  birth  is 
expressed  plurally  ;  for  it  is  a  common  Hebraism  to  denote  the  eminency  or  conti 
nuation  of  a  thing  or  action  by  the  plural  number.  God  shall  judge  the  world  "  in 
righteousness  and  equity;"  or  most  righteously  and  equitably,  Psalm  xcviii,  9.-«- 
"The  angers  of  the  Lord,"  Lam.  iv,  16,  &c. 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  537 

distinguishes  his  human  nature  from  his  eternal  generation.  The 
prophet  describes  him  who  was  to  *  come  out  of  Bethlehem'  by  another 
more  eminent  coming  or  going  forth,  even  from  all  eternity.  This  is 
so  signal  a  description  of  the  Divine  generation,  before  all  time,  or 
of  that  going  forth  from  everlasting  of  Christ,  the  eternal  Son  of  God  ; 
'God,  of  the  substance  of  the  Father,  begotten,  before  the  worlds;'  who 
was  afterward  in  time  made  man,  and  born  into  the  world  in  Bethlehem, 
that  the  prophecy  evidently  belongs  to  him,  and  could  never  be  verified 
of  any  other."  (Dr.  Pocock.) 

This  text,  indeed,  so  decidedly  indicates  that  peculiar  notion  of  the 
Divinity  of  our  Lord,  which  is  marked  by  the  term  and  the  relation  of 
Son,  that  it  is  not  surprising  that  Socinians  should  resort  to  the  utmost 
violence  of  criticism  to  escape  its  powerful  evidence.  Dr.  Priestley, 
therefore,  says,  "  that  it  may  be  understood  concerning  the  promises  of 
God,  in  which  the  coming  of  Christ  was  signified  to  mankind  from  the 
beginning  of  the  world."  But  nothing  can  be  more  forced  or  unsup- 
ported. The  word  here  employed  never  signifies  the  work  of  God  in 
predicting  future  events  :  but  is  often  used  to  express  natural  birth  and 
origin.  So  it  is  unquestionably  used  in  the  preceding  clause,  and  cannot 
be  supposed  to  be  taken  in  a  different  sense,  much  less  in  a  unique 
sense,  in  that  which  follows,  and  especially  when  a  clear  antithesis  is 
marked  and  intended.  He  was  to  be  born  in  time ;  but  was  not,  on 
that  account,  merely  a  man  :  he  was  "  from  the  days  of  eternity."  By 
his  natural  birth,  or  "  going  forth,"  he  was  from  Bethlehem ;  but  his 
"  goings  forth,"  his  production,  his  heavenly  birth  or  generation,  was 
from  everlasting ;  for  so  the  Hebrew  word  means,  though,  like  our  own 
word  "  ever,"  it  is  sometimes  accommodated  to  temporal  duration.  Its 
proper  sense  is  that  of  eternity,  and  it  is  used  in  passages  which  speak 
of  the  infinite  duration  of  God  himself. 

Others  refer  "  his  goings  forth  from  everlasting,"  to  the  purpose  of 
God  that  he  should  come  into  the  world ;  but  this  is  too  absurd  to  need 
refutation :  no  such  strange  form  of  speech  as  this  would  be,  if  taken  in 
this  sense,  occurs  in  the  Scriptures :  and  it  would  be  mere  trifling  so 
solemnly  to  affirm  that  of  Messiah,  which  is  just  as  true  of  any  other 
person  born  into  the  world.  This  passage  must,  then,  stand  as  an  irre- 
futable proof  of  the  faith  of  the  ancient  Jewish  Church,  both  in  the 
Divinity  and  the  Divine  Sonship  of  Messiah ;  and,  as  Dr.  Hales  well 
observes,  (Hales's  Analysis,)  "This  prophecy  of  Micah  is,  perhaps, 
the  most  important  single  prophecy  in  the  Old  Testament,  and  the  most 
comprehensive  respecting  the  personal  character  of  the  Messiah,  and 
his  successive  manifestation  to  the  world.  It  crowns  the  whole  chain 
of  prophecies  descriptive  of  the  several  limitations  of  the  blessed  Seed 
of  the  woman,  to  the  line  of  Shem,  to  the  family  of  Abraham,  Isaac, 
and  Jacob,  to  the  tribe  of  Judah,  and  to  the  royal  house  of  David,  here 


538  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

terminating  in  his  birth  at  Bethlehem,  <  the  city  of  David.'  It  carefully 
distinguishes  his  human  nativity  from  his  eternal  generation ;  foretells 
the  rejection  of  the  Israelites  and  Jews  for  a  season,  their  final  restora- 
tion, and  the  universal  peace  destined  to  prevail  throughout  the  earth  in 
'the  regeneration.'  It  forms,  therefore,  the  basis  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment, which  begins  with  his  human  birth  at  Bethlehem,  the  miraculous 
circumstances  of  which  are  recorded  in  the  introductions  of  Matthew's 
and  Luke's  Gospels ;  his  eternal  generation,  as  the  Oracle,  or  Wis- 
dom, in  the  sublime  introduction  of  John's  Gospel ;  his  prophetic 
character  and  second  coming  illustrated  in  the  four  Gospels  and  the 
Epistles ;  ending  with  a  prediction  of  the  speedy  approach  of  the  latter, 
in  the  Apocalypse,  Rev.  xxii,  20." 

The  same  relation  of  Son,  in  the  full  view  of  supreme  Divinity,  and 
where  no  reference  appears  to  be  had  to  the  office  and  future  work  of 
Messiah,  is  found  in  Proverbs  xxx,  4,  '  Who  hath  ascended  up  into  hea- 
ven, or  descended  ?  Who  hath  gathered  the  wind  in  his  fists  ?  Who 
hath  bound  the  waters  in  a  garment  ?  Who  hath  established  all  the  ends 
of  the  earth  ?  What  is  his  name,  and  what  is  his  Son's  name,  if  thou 
canst  tell  ?"  Here  the  Deity  is  contemplated,  not  in  his  redeeming  acts, 
in  any  respect  or  degree ;  not  as  providing  for  the  recovery  of  a  lost 
race,  or  that  of  the  Jewish  people,  by  the  gift  of  his  Son :  he  is  placed 
before  the  reverend  gaze  of  the  prophet  in  his  acts  of  creative  and  con- 
serving power  only,  managing  at  will  and  ruling  the  operations  of 
nature  ;  and  yet,  even  in  these  peculiar  offices  of  Divinity  alone,  he  is 
spoken  of  as  having  a  Son,  whose  "  name,"  that  is,  according  to  the 
Hebrew  idiom,  whose  nature,  is  as  deep,  mysterious,  and  unutterable  as 
his  own.  "  What  is  His  name,  and  what  is  his  Son's  name,  canst  thou 
tell?"  (2) 

The  Scriptures  of  the  Old  Testament  themselves  in  this  manner  fur- 
nished the  Jews  with  the  idea  of  a  personal  Son  in  the  Divine  nature ; 
and  their  familiarity  with  it  is  abundantly  evident,  from  the  frequent 
application  of  the  terms  "Son,"  "Son  of  God,"  "first  and  only -begotten 
Son,"  "  Offspring  of  God,"  to  the  Logos,  by  Philo  ;  and  that  in  pas- 

(2)  Dr.  A.  Clarke,  in  his  note  on  this  text,  evidently  feels  the  difficulty  of 
disposing  of  it  on  the  theory  that  the  term  Son  is  not  a  Divine  title,  and  enters 
a  sort  of  caveat  against  resorting  to  doubtful  texts,  as  proofs  of  our  Lord's  Divi- 
nity. But  for  all  purposes  for  which  this  text  has  ever  been  adduced,  it  is  not  a 
doubtful  one ;  for  it  expresses,  as  clearly  as  possible,  that  God  has  a  Son,  and 
makes  no  reference  to  the  incarnation  at  all ;  so  that  the  words  are  not  spoken 
in  anticipation  of  that  event.  Those  who  deny  the  Divine  Sonship  can  never, 
therefore,  explain  that  text.  What  follows  in  the  note  referred  to  is  more  objec- 
tionable :  it  hints  at  the  obscurity  of  the  writer  as  weakening  his  authority.  Who 
he  was,  or  what  he  was,  we  indeed  know  not ;  but  his  words  stand  in  the  book 
of  Proverbs ;  a  book,  the  inspiration  of  which  both  our  Lord  and  his  apostles  have 
verified,  and  that  is  enough :  we  need  no  other  attestation. 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  539 

sages  where  he  must,  in  all  fair  interpretation,  be  understood  as  speaking 
of  a  personal,  and  not  of  a  personified  Logos.  The  same  terms  are  also 
found  in  other  Jewish  writers  before  the  Christian  era. 

The  phrase  "  Son  of  God"  was,  therefore,  known  to  the  ancient  Jews, 
and  to  them  conveyed  a  very  definite  idea ;  and  it  is  no  answer  to  this 
to  say,  that  it  was  a  common  appellative  of  Messiah  among  their 
ancient  writers.  The  question  is,  how  came  "  Son  of  God"  to  be  an 
appellative  of  Messiah  ?  "  Messiah"  is  an  official  title ;  "  Son,"  a  per- 
sonal one.  It  is  granted  that  the  Messiah  is  the  Son  of  God  ;  but  it  is 
denied  that,  therefore,  the  term  Son  of  God  ceases  to  be  a  personal 
description,  and  that  it  imports  the  same  with  Messiah.  David  was  the 
•'  son  of  Jesse,"  and  the  "  king  of  Israel ;"  he,  therefore,  who  was  king 
of  Israel  was  the  son  of  Jesse  ;  but  the  latter  is  the  personal,  the  former 
only  the  official  description ;  and  it  cannot  be  argued  that  "  son  of 
Jesse"  conveys  no  idea  distinct  from  "  king  of  Israel."  On  the  con- 
trary, it  marks  his  origin  and  his  family ;  for,  before  he  was  king  of 
Israel,  he  was  the  son  of  Jesse.  In  like  manner,  H  Son  of  God"  marks 
the  natural  relation  of  Messiah  to  God ;  and  the  term  Messiah  his 
official  relation  to  men.  The  personal  title  cannot  otherwise  be  ex- 
plained ;  and  as  we  have  seen,  that  it  was  used  by  the  Jews  as  one  of  the 
titles  of  Messiah,  yet  still  used  personally,  and  not  officially,  and,  also, 
without  any  reference  to  the  miraculous  conception  at  all,  as  before 
proved,  it  follows,  that  it  expresses  a  natural  relation  to  God,  subsisting 
not  in  the  human,  but  in  the  higher  nature  of  Messiah  ;  and,  this  higher 
nature  being  proved  to  be  Divine,  it  follows,  that  the  term  Son  of  God, 
as  applied  to  Jesus,  is,  therefore,  a  title  of  absolute  Divinity,  importing 
his  participation  in  the  very  nature  and  essence  of  God.  The  same 
ideas  of  Divine  Sonship  are  suggested  by  almost  every  passage  in 
which  the  phrase  occurs  in  the  New  Testament. 

"  When  Jesus  was  baptized,  he  went  up  straightway  out  of  the  water, 
and  lo,  the  heavens  were  opened  unto  him,  and  he  saw  the  Spirit  of  God 
descending  like  a  dove,  and  lighting  upon  him ;  and  lo,  a  voice  from 
heaven,  This  is  my  beloved  Son,  in  whom  I  am  well  pleased."  The 
circumstances  of  this  testimony  are  of  the  most  solemn  and  impressive 
kind,  and  there  can  be  no  rational  doubt  but  they  were  designed  autho- 
ritatively to  invest  our  Lord  with  the  title  "  Son  of  God"  in  the  full 
sense  which  it  bears  in  those  prophecies  in  which  the  Messias  had  been 
introduced  under  that  appellation,  rendered  still  more  strong  and  em- 
phatic by  adding  the  epithet  "  beloved,"  and  the  declaration,  that  in  him 
the  "Father  was  well  pleased."  That  the  name  "  Son  of  God"  is  not 
here  given  to  Christ  with  reference  to  his  resurrection,  need  not  be 
stated ;  that  it  was  not  given  to  him,  along  with  a  declaration  of  the 
Father's  pleasure  in  him,  because  of  the  manner  in  which  he  had  ful- 
filled the  office  of  Messiah,  is  also  obvious,  for  he  was  but  just  then 


540  THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES.  [PART 

entering  upon  his  office  and  commencing  his  ministry;  and  if,  therefore, 
it  can  be  proved,  that  it  was  not  given  to  him  with  reference  to  his 
miraculous  conception,  it  must  follow  that  it  was  given  on  grounds  inde- 
pendent  of  his  office,  and  independent  of  the  circumstances  of  his  birth  ; 
and  that,  therefore,  he  was  in  a  higher  nature  than  his  human,  and  for 
a  higher  reason  than  an  official  one,  the  "  Son  of  God." 

Now  this  is,  I  think,  very  easily  and  conclusively  proved.  As  soon 
as  the  Baptist  John  had  heard  this  testimony,  and  seen  this  descent  of 
the  Holy  Spirit  upon  him,  he  tells  us  that  he  "  bore  record  that  this  is 
the  Son  of  God  :" — the  Messiah,  we  grant,  but  not  the  Son  of  God, 
because  he  was  the  Messiah,  but  Son  of  God  and  Messiah  also.  This 
is  clear,  from  the  opinion  of  the  Jews  of  that  day,  as  before  shown. 
It  was  to  the  Jews  that  he  "  bore  record"  that  Jesus  was  the  Son  of 
God.  But  he  used  this  title  in  the  sense  commonly  received  by  his 
hearers.  Had  he  simply  testified  that  he  was  the  Messiah,  this  would 
not  to  them  in  general  have  expressed  the  idea  which  all  attached  to 
the  name  "  Son  of  God,"  and  which  they  took  to  invole  a  Divine  cha- 
racter and  claim.  But  in  this  ordinary  sense  of  the  title  among  the 
Jews,  John  the  Baptist  gave  his  testimony  to  him,  and  by  that  shows  in 
what  sense  he  himself  understood  the  testimony  of  God  to  the  Sonship 
of  Jesus.  So,  in  his  closing  testimony  to  Christ,  recorded  in  John  iii, 
he  makes  an  evident  allusion  to  what  took  place  at  the  baptism  of  our 
Lord,  and  says,  "  The  Father  loveth  the  Son,  and  hath  given  all  things 
into  his  hand."  Here  the  love  of  the  Father,  as  declared  at  his  bap- 
tism, is  represented  as  love  to  him  as  the  Son,  and  all  things  being  given 
into  his  hands,  as  the  consequence  of  his  being  his  beloved  Son.  "  All 
things,"  unquestionably,  imply  all  offices,  all  power  and  authority ;  all 
that  is  included  in  the  offices  of  King,  Messias,  Mediator ;  and  it 
is  affirmed,  not  that  he  is  Son,  and  beloved  as  a  Son  because  of  his 
being  invested  with  these  offices,  but  that  he  is  invested  with  them, 
because  he  was  the  well-beloved  Son ;  a  circumstance  which  fully 
demonstrates  that  "  Son  of  God"  is  not  an  official  title,  and  that  it  is 
not  of  the  same  import  as  Messiah.  To  the  transaction  at  his  baptism 
our  Lord  himself  adverts  in  John  v,  37 :  *  And  the  Father  himself, 
which  hath  sent  me,  hath  borne  witness  of  me."  For,  as  he  had  just 
mentioned  the  witness  arising  from  his  miraculous  works,  and,  in  addi- 
tion to  these,  introduces  the  witness  of  the  Father  himself  as  distinct 
from  the  works,  a  personal  testimony  from  the  Father  alone  can  be 
intended,  and  that  personal  testimony  was  given  at  his  baptism.  Now, 
the  witness  of  the  Father,  on  this  occasion,  is,  that  he  was  his  beloved 
Son  ;  and  it  is  remarkable  that  our  Lord  introduces  the  Father's  testi- 
mony to  his  Sonship  on  an  occasion  in  which  the  matter  in  dispute  with 
the  Jews  was  respecting  his  claim  to  be  the  Son  of  God.  The  Jews 
denied  that  God  was  his  Father  in  the  sense  in  which  he  had  declared  him 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL   INSTITUTES.  541 

to  be  so,  and  "  they  sought  the  more  to  kill  him,  because  he  not  only 
had  broken  the  Sabbath ;  but  said  also  that  God  was  his  Father, 
making  himself  equal  with  God."  In  this  case,  what  was  the  conduct 
of  our  Lord  ?  He  reaffirms  his  Sonship  even  in  this  very  objectionable 
sense ;  asserts  that  "  the  Son  doeth  all  things  soever  that  the  Father 
doeth,"  verse  19;  that  "as  the  Father  raiseth  the  dead,  so  the  Son 
quickeneth  whomsoever  he  will,"  verse  21 ;  that  "  all  judgment  has 
been  committed  to  the  Son,  that  all  men  should  honour  the  Son,  even 
as  they  honour  the  Father,"  verse  23  ;  that "  as  the  Father  hath  life  in 
himself,  so  hath  he  given  to  the  Son  to  have  life  in  himself,"  verse  26  ; 
and  then  confirms  all  these  high  claims  of  equality  with  the  Father,  by 
adducing  the  Father's  own  witness  at  his  baptism  :  "  And  the  Father 
himself  hath  borne  witness  of  me.  Ye  have  neither  heard  his  voice  at 
any  time,  nor  seen  his  shape  ;  and  ye  have  not  his  word  abiding  in  you, 
for  whom  he  hath  sent,  him  ye  believe  not."  (3)  With  respect  to  this 
testimony,  two  critical  remarks  have  been  made,  which,  though  not 
essential  to  the  argument,  farther  corroborate  the  views  just  taken.  The 
one  is,  that  in  all  the  three  evangelists  who  record  the  testimony  of  the 
Father  to  Christ  at  his  baptism,  the  article  is  prefixed  both  to  the  substan- 
tive and  the  adjective.  Matt,  iii,  17,  Ovtoc  eanv  6  viog  [m  6  ayaixqTog, 
the  most  discriminating  mode  of  expression  that  could  be  employed,  as 
if  to  separate  Jesus  from  every  other  who,  at  any  time,  had  received  the 
appellation  of  the  Son  of  God  :  This  is  that  Son  of  mine  who  is  the 
beloved.  In  the  second  clause,  "  in  whom  I  am  well  pleased,"  the  verb 
in  all  the  three  evangelists  is  in  the  first  aorist,  ev  u  tvionrioa.  Now, 
although  we  often  render  the  Greek  aorist  by  the  English  present,  yet 
this  can  be  done  with  propriety  only  when  the  proposition  is  equally 
true,  whether  it  be  stated  in  the  present,  in  the  past,  or  in  the  future 
time.  And  thus  the  analogy  of  the  Greek  language  requires  us  not 
only  to  consider  the  name  Son  of  God,  as  applied  in  a  peculiar  sense  to 

(3)  Though  the  argument  does  not  at  all  depend  upon  it,  yet  it  may  be  proper 
to  refer  to  Campbell's  translation  of  these  verses,  as  placing  some  of  the  clauses 
in  this  passage  in  a  clearer  light.  "  Now  the  Father,  who  sent  me,  hath  him- 
self  attested  me.  Did  ye  never  hear  his  voice,  or  see  his  form  ?  Or,  have  yo  for. 
gotten  his  declaration,  that  '  ye  believe  not  him  whom  he  hath  commissioned  ?' " 
On  this  translation.  Dr.  Campbell  remarks,  "  The  reader  will  observe,  that  the 
two  clauses,  which  are  rendered  in  the  English  Bible  as  declarations,  are,  in  this 
version,  translated  as  questions.  The  difference  in  the  original  is  only  in  the 
pointing.  That  they  ought  to  be  so  read,  we  need  not,  in  my  opinion,  stronger 
evidence  than  that  they  throw  much  light  upon  the  whole  passage.  Our  Lord 
here  refers  to  the  testimony  given  at  his  baptism ;  and  when  you  road  the  two 
clauses  as  questions,  all  the  chief  circumstances  attending  that  memorable  testi- 
mony are  exactly  pointed  out.  '  Have  ye  never  heard  his  voice,  <pusvri  «  riav 
tpavuv;  nor  seen  his  form?'  the  cuifiartKov  ci£os,  in  which,  St.  Luke  says,  the  Holy 
Ghost  descended.  '  And  have  ye  not  his  declaration  abiding  in  you  ?'  tov  Xoyov, 
the  words  which  were  spoken  at  that  time." 


V 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES.  [PART 

Jesus,  but  also  to  refer  the  expression  used  at  his  baptism  to  that  inter- 
course which  had  subsisted  between  the  Father  and  the  Son,  before  this 
name  was  announced  to  men.  (4) 

The  epithet "  only  begotten,"  which  several  times  occurs  in  the  New 
Testament,  affords  farther  proof  of  the  Sonship  of  Christ  in  his  Divine 
nature.  One  of  these  instances  only  need  be  selected.'  "  The  Word 
was  made  flesh,  and  dwelt  among  us,  and  we  beheld  his  glory,  the  glory 
as  of  the  only  begotten  of  the  Father,  full  of  grace  and  truth."  If  the 
epithet  only  begotten  referred  to  Christ's  miraculous  conception,  then 
the  glory  "  as  of  the  only  begotten"  must  be  a  glory  of  the  human  na- 
ture of  Christ  only,  for  that  alone  was  capable  of  being  thus  conceived. 
This  is,  however,  clearly  contrary  to  the  scope  of  the  passage,  which 
does  not  speak  of  the  glory  of  the  nature,  "  the  flesh,"  which  "  the 
Word"  assumed,  but  of  the  glory  of  the  Word  himself,  who  16  here 
said  to  be  the  only  begotten  of  the  Fatner.  It  is,  therefore,  the  glory 
of  his  Divine  nature  which  is  here  intended.  (5)  Such,  too,  was  the 
sense  in  which  the  primitive  Church  and  the  immediate  followers  of  the 
apostles  understood  the  title  fiovoyevrig,  only  begotten,  or  only  Son,  as 
Bishop  Bull  has  shown  at  length,  (Judicium  Eccles.)  and  "  to  him  and 
others,"  says  Dr.  Waterland,  "  I  may  refer  for  proof  that  the  title,  Son 
of  God,  or  only-begotten  Son  in  Scripture,  cannot  be  reasonably  under- 
stood either  of  our  Lord's  miraculous  conception  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  or  of 
his  Messiahship,  or  of  his  being  the  first  begotten  from  the  dead,  or  of  his 
receiving  all  power,  and  his  being  appointed  heir  of  all  things.  None  of 
these  circumstances,  singly  considered,  nor  all  together,  will  be  sufficient 
to  account  for  the  title  only  Son,  or  only  begotten  ;  but  it  is  necessary 
to  look  higher  up  to  the  pre-existent  and  Divine  nature  of  the  Word,  who 
was  in  the  beginning  with  God,  and  was  himself  very  God,  before  the 
creation,  and  from  all  eternity.  Angels  and  men  have  been  called  sons 
of  God,  in  an  improper  and  metaphorical  sense,  but  they  have  never 
been  styled  '  only  begotten,''  nor  indeed, '  sons,'  in  any  such  distinguish- 
ing and  emphatic  manner  as  Christ  is.  They  are  sons  by  adoption,  or 
faint  resemblance ;  he  is  truly,  properly,  and  eminently,  Son  of  God, 
and,  therefore,  God,  as  every  son  of  man  is,  therefore,  truly  man."  The 
note  in  the  Socinian  version  tells  us, "  that  this  expression  does  not  refer 


(4)  "  Thou  art  my  beloved  Son,  in  whom  I  am  well  pleased,  that  is,  have 
always  been  well  pleased,  am  at  present  well  pleased,  and  will  continue  to  be  well 
pleased."  (Macknight.) 

(5)  "  The  glory  as  of  the  only  begotten,"  &c.  ¥  The  particle  «f,  as,  is  not 
here  a  note  of  similitude,  but  of  confirmation,  that  this  Son  was  the  only  begot 
ten  of  the  Father."  (Whitby.)  "  This  particle  sometimes  answers  to  the  Hebrew 
ach,  and  signifies  certe,  truly."  (Ibid.)  So  Schleusner,  in  voc.  15,  revera,  vere 
The  clause  may,  therefore,  be  properly  rendered,  "  The  glory  indeed,  or  truly  of 
the  only  begotten  of  the  Father." 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  543 

to  any  peculiar  mode  of  derivation  or  existence ;  but  is  used  to  express 
merely  a  higher  degree  of  affection,  and  is  applied  to  Isaac,  though  Abra- 
ham had  other  sons."  Isaac  is,  however,  so  called,  because  he  was 
the  only  child  which  Abraham  had  by  his  wife  Sarah,  and  this  instance 
is,  therefore,  against  them.  The  other  passages  in  this  Gospel  and  in 
St.  John's  First  Epistle,  in  which  the  term  is  used,  give  no  countenance 
to  this  interpretation,  and  in  the  only  other  passages  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment, in  which  it  occurs,  it  unquestionably  means  an  "only  son  or 
child."  Luke  vii,  12,  "  Behold  there  was  a  dead  man  carried  out,  the 
only  son  of  his  mother."  Luke  viii,  42,  "  For  he  had  one  only  daugh- 
ter." Luke  ix,  38,  "  Master,  look  upon  my  son,  for  he  is  my  only  child." 
Here,  then,  on  the  one  hand,  there  is  no  passage  in  which  the  epithet 
only  begotten  occurs,  which  indicates  by  any  other  phrase  or  circum- 
stance, that  it  has  the  force  of  ic ell  beloved ;  while  there  are  several, 
which,  from  the  circumstances,  oblige  us  to  interpret  it  literally  as  ex- 
pressive of  a  peculiar  relationship  of  the  child  to  the  parent,  an  only,  an 
only-begotten  child.  This  is,  then,  the  sense  in  which  it  is  used  of 
Christ,  and  it  must  respect  either  his  Divine  or  human  nature.  Those 
who  refer  it  to  his  human  nature,  consider  it  as  founded  upon  his  miracu- 
lous conception.  It  is,  however,  clear,  that  that  could  not  constitute 
him  a  son,  except  as  it  consisted  in  the  immediate  formation  of  the  man- 
hood of  our  Lord  by  the  power  of  God  ;  but,  in  this  respect,  he  was  not 
the  "only  begotten,"  not  the  "only  Son,"  because  Adam  was  thus  also 
immediately  produced,  and  for  this  very  reason  is  called  by  St.  Luke, 
"  the  son  of  God."  Seeing,  then,  that  fiovoyevw,  only  begotten,  does  not 
any  where  import  the  affection  of  a  parent,  but  the  peculiar  relation  of 
an  only  son  ;  and  that  this  peculiarity  does  not  apply  to  the  production 
of  the  mere  human  nature  of  our  Lord,  the  first  man  being  in  this  sense, 
and  for  this  very  reason,  "  a  son  of  God,"  thereby  excluding  Christ, 
considered  as  a  man,  from  the  relation  of  only  Son,  the  epithet  can 
only  be  applied  to  the  Divine  nature  of  our  Lord,  in  which  alone,  he 
is  at  once  naturally  and  exclusively  "  the  Son  of  the  living  God." 

All  those  passages,  too,  which  declare  that  "  all  things  were  made  by 
the  Son,"  and  that  God  "  sent  his  Son,"  into  the  world  may  be  considered 
as  declarations  of  a  Divine  Sonship,  because  they  imply  that  the  Cre- 
ator was,  at  the  very  period  of  creation,  a  Son,  and  that  he  was  the 
Son  of  God,  when  and  consequently  before,  he  was  sent  into  the  world  ; 
and  thus  both  will  prove,  that  that  relation  is  independent  either  of  his 
official  appointment  as  Messiah,  or  of  his  incarnation.  The  only  plau- 
sible objection  to  this  is,  that  when  a  person  is  designated  by  a  particu- 
lar title,  he  is  often  said  to  perform  actions  under  that  title,  though  the 
designation  may  have  been  given  to  him  subsequently.  Certain  acts 
may  be  said  to  have  been  done  by  the  king,  though,  in  fact,  he  per- 
formed them  before  his  advancement  to  the  throne ;  and  we  ascribe  the 


514  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

"  Principia"  to  Sir  Isaac  Newton,  though  that  work  was  written  before 
lie  received  the  honour  of  knighthood.  In  this  manner  we  are  told,  by 
those  who  allow  the  Divinity  of  Christ,  while  they  deny  his  Divine  Son- 
ship,  that,  as  Son  of  God  was  one  of  the  common  appellations  of  Christ 
among  his  disciples,  it  was  natural  for  them  to  ascribe  creation,  and 
other  Divine  acts  performed  before  the  incarnation,  to  the  Son,  meaning, 
merely  that  they  were  done  by  that  same  Divine  person  who  in  conse- 
quence of  his  incarnation  and  miraculous  conception,  became  the  Son 
of  God,  and  was  by  his  disciples  acknowledged  as  such. 

The  whole  of  this  argument  supposes  that  the  titles  "  the  Sox,"  "  the 
Sox  of  God,"  are  merely  human  titles,  and  that  they  are  applied  to 
Christ,  when  considered  as  God,  and  in  his  pre-existent  state,  only  in 
consequence  of  that  interchange  of  appellations  to  which  the  circum- 
stance  of  the  union  of  two  natures,  Divine  and  human,  in  one  person,  so 
naturally  leads.  Thus  it  is  said,  that  the  "  Lord  of  glory"  was  "  cruci- 
fied ;"  that  God  purchased  the  Church  "  with  his  own  blood ;"  that  "the 
Son  of  man"  was  "  in  heaven"  before  the  ascension.  So  also  in  fami- 
liar style,  we  speak  of  the  Divinity  of  Jesus,  and  of  the  Godhead  of  the 
Son  of  Mary.  An  interchange  of  appellations  is  acknowledged  ;  but 
then  even  this  supposes  that  some  of  them  are  designations  of  his  Di- 
vine, while  others  describe  his  assumed  nature  ;  and  the  simple  circum- 
stance of  such  an  interchange  will  no  more  prove  the  title  Son  of  God 
to  be  a  human  designation,  than  it  will  prove  Sox  of  Mary  to  be  a  Di- 
vine one.  Farther,  if  such  an  interchange  of  titles  be  thus  contended 
for,  we  may  then  ask,  which  of  the.  titles,  in  strict  appropriation,  desig- 
nate the  human,  and  which  the  Divine  nature  of  our  Lord  ?  If  "  Son 
of  God"  be,  in  strictness,  a  human  designation,  and  so  it  must  be,  if  it 
relate  not  to  his  Divinity,  then  we  may  say  that  our  Saviour,  as  God, 
has  no  distinctive  name  at  all  in  the  whole  Scriptures.  The  title  "  God" 
does  not  distinguish  him  from  the  other  persons  of  the  trinity,  and  Word 
stands  in  precisely  the  same  predicament  as  Sox  ;  for  the  same  kind  of 
criticism  may  reduce  it  to  merely  an  official  appellative,  given  because 
of  his  being  the  medium  of  instructing  men  in  the  will  of  God ;  and  it 
mav,  with  equal  force,  be  said  that  he  is  called  "  the  Word"  in  his  pre- 
existent  state  Only,  because  he  in  time,  became  the  Word,  in  like  man- 
ner as,  in  time  also  he  became  the  Son.  The  other  names  of  Christ 
are  all  official ;  and  as  in  the  Scriptures  we  have  no  such  phrase  as 
u.  the  second  person  in  the  trinity"  and  other  theological  designations, 
since  adopted,  to  express  the  Divinity  of  Christ,  the  denial  of  the  title 
Sox  as  a  designation  of  Divinity  leads  to  this  remarkable  conclusion, 
(remarkable  especially,  when  considered  as  coming  from  those  who  hold 
the  Deity  of  Christ,)  that  we  have  not  in  Scripture,  neither  in  the  Old 
nor  the  New  Testament,  a  single  appellation  which,  in  strictness  and 
truth  of  speech,  can  be  used  to  express  the  Divine  person  of  him  who 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  545 

was  made  flesh  and  dwelt  among  us.  If,  then,  an  interchange  of  Divine 
and  human  designations  be  allowed,  the  title  "  Son  of  God"  may  still  be 
a  Divine  description  for  any  thing  which  such  an  interchange  implies ; 
if  it  is  not  a  designation  of  his  Divinity,  we  are  left  without  a  name  for  our 
Saviour  as  God,  and  considered  as  existing  before  the  incarnation,  and 
so  there  can  properly  be  no  interchange  of  Divine  and  human  titles  at  ail- 
But  the  notion  that  the  title  Son  of  God  is  an  appellation  of  the  human 
nature  of  our  Lord,  applied  sometimes  to  him,  when  his  Divine  charac- 
ter and  acts  are  distinctly  considered,  by  a  customary  interchange  of 
designations,  is  a  mere  assumption.  There  is  nothing  to  prove  it,  while 
all  those  passages  which  connect  the  title  "  Son,"  immediately,  and  by 
way  of  eminence,  with  his  Divinity  remain  wholly  unaccounted  fcr  on 
this  theory,  and  are,  therefore,  contrary  to  it.  Let  a  few  of  these  be 
examined.  It  is  evident  that,  in  a  peculiar  sense,  he  claims  Gtwl  as  his 
Father,  and  that  with  no  reference  either  to  the  incarnation  or  resurrection, 
or  to  any  thing  beside  a  relation  in  the  Divine  nature.  So,  when  he  had 
said  to  the  Jews,  "  My  Father  worketh  hitherto  and  I  work ;"  the  Jews 
so  understood  him  to  claim  God  for  his  Father  as  to  equal  himself  with 
God — "  they  sought  the  more  to  kill  him,  because  he  had  not  only  bro- 
ken the  Sabbath,  but  said  also  that  God  was  his  Father,  irursga  i^iov,  hls 
own  proper  Father,  making  himself  equal  with  God ;"  and,  so  far 
from  correcting  this  as  an  error  in  his  hearers,  which  he  was  bound  to 
do  by  every  moral  consideration,  if  they  had  so  greatly  mistaken  him, 
he  goes  on  to  confirm  them  in  their  opinion  as  to  the  extent  of  his  claims, 
declaring,  that  "  what  things  soever  the  Father  doeth,  these  also  doth 
the  Son  likewise ;  and  that  as  the  Father  hath  life  in  himself,  so  hath 
he  given  the  Son  to  have  life  in  himself."  In  all  this  it  is  admitted  by 
our  Lord,  that  whatever  he  is  and  has  is  from  the  Father ;  which  is, 
indeed,  implied  in  the  very  name  and  relation  of  Son  ;  but  if  this  com- 
munication be  not  of  so  peculiar  a  kind  as  to  imply  an  equality  with  God, 
a  sameness  of  nature  and  perfections,  there  is  not  oidy  an  unwarrantable 
presumption  in  the  words  of  our  Lord,  but,  in  the  circumstances  in  which 
they  were  uttered,  there  is  an  equivocation  in  them  inconsistent  with 
the  sincerity  of  an  honest  man.  This  argument  is  confirmed  by  attend- 
ing to  a  similar  passage  in  the  tenth  chapter  of  John.  Our  Lord  says, 
;t  They  shall  never  perish ;  my  Father  which  gave  them  me  is  greater 
than  I,  and  none  is  able  to  pluck  them  out  of  my  Father's  hand.  I  and 
my  Father  are  one.  Then  the  Jews  took  up  stones  to  stone  him." 
And  they  assign,  for  so  doing,  the  very  same  reason  which  St.  John  has 
mentioned  in  the  fifth  chapter :  "  We  stone  thee  for  blasphemy,  because 
that  thou,  being  a  man,  makest  thyself  God."  Our  Lord's  answer  is : 
"  Is  it  not  written  in  your  law,  I  said  ye  are  gods?  If  he  called  them 
gods  unto  whom  the  word  of  God  came,  and  the  Scriptures  cannot  be 
broken,"  i.  e.  if  the  language  of  Scripture  be  unexceptionable,  "  sav 
Vol.  I.  35 


546  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

ye  of  him  whom  the  Father  hath  sanctified  and  sent  into  the  world, 
thou  blasphemest,  because  I  said,  I  am  the  Son  of  God  ?"  These  words 
are  sometimes  quoted  in  support  of  the  opinion  of  those  who  hold  that 
our  Saviour  is  called  the  Son  of  God,  purely  upon  account  of  the  com- 
mission which  he  received.  "  But  the  force  of  the  argument  and  the 
consistency  of  the  discourse  require  us  to  affix  a  much  higher  meaning 
to  that  expression.  Our  Lord  is  reasoning  a  fortiori.  Revindicates 
himself  from  the  charge  of  blasphemy  in  calling  himself  the  Son  of  God, 
because  even  those  who  hold  civil  offices  upon  earth  are  called,  in  Scrip- 
ture, gods.  v6)  But  that  he  might  not  appear  to  put  himself  upon  a  level 
with  them,  and  to  retract  his  former  assertion,  '  I  and  my  Father  are 
one,'  he  not  only  calls  himself  « him  whom  the  Father  hath  sent  into 
the  world,'  which  implies  that  he  had  a  being,  and  that  God  was  his 
Father,  before  he  was  sent ;  but  he  subjoins,  '  If  I  do  not  the  works  of 
my  Father,  believe  me  not.  But  if  I  do,  though  you  believe  not  me, 
believe  the  works,  that  ye  may  know  and  believe  that  the  Father  is  in 
me,  and  I  in  him,'  expressions  which  appear  to  be  equivalent  to  his 
former  assertion,  *  I  and  the  Father  are  one,'  and  which  were  certainly 
understood  by  the  Jews  in  that  sense,  for  as  soon  as  he  uttered  them 
they  sought  again  to  take  him."  (HilVs  Lectures.) 

To  these  two  eminent  instances,  in  which  our  Lord  claims  God  as 
his  Father,  in  reference  solely  to  his  Divine  nature,  and  to  no  circum- 
stance whatever  connected  with  his  birth  or  his  offices,  may  be  added 
his  unequivocal  answer,  on  his  trial,  to  the  direct  question  of  the  Jewish 
council. — "  Then  said  they  all,  Art  thou  the  Son  of  God  ?  and  he  saith 
unto  them,  Ye  say  that  I  am,"  that  is,  lam  that  ye  say ;  thus  declaring 
that,  in  the  very  sense  in  which  they  put  the  question,  he  was  the  Son 
of  God.  In  confessing  himself  to  be,  in  that  sense,  the  Son  of  God, 
he  did  more  than  claim  to  be  the  Messiah,  for  the  council  judged 
him  for  that  reason  guilty  of  " blasphemy;"  a  charge  which  could  not 
lie  against  any  one,  by  the  Jewish  law,  for  professing  to  be  the  Messiah. 
It  was  in  their  judgment  a  case  of  blasphemy,  explicitly  provided  against 
by  their  "  law,"  which  inflicted  death  upon  the  offence ;  but,  in  the  whole 
Mosaic  institute,  it  is  not  a  capital  crime  to  assume  the  title  and  charac- 
ter  of  Messiah.  Why,  then,  did  the  confession  of  Christ,  that  he  was 
the  "  Son  of  God,"  in  answer  to  the  interrogatory  of  the  council,  lead 
them  to  exclaim,  "  What  need  we  any  farther  witness  ?  for  we  ourselves 
have  heard  of  his  own  mouth — he  is  worthy  of  death."     "  We  have  a 

(6)  "  This  argument,  which  is  from  the  less  to  the  greater,  proceeds  thus  :  If 
those  who  having  nothing  Divine  in  them,  namely,  the  judges  of  the  great  sanhe- 
drim, to  whom  the  psalmist  there  speaks,  are  called  gods  for  this  reason  only, 
that  they  have  in  them  a  certain  imperfect  image  of  Divine  power  and  authority, 
how  much  more  may  I  be  called  God,  the  Son  of  God,  who  am  the  natural  Son 
of  God."     (Bishop  Bull.) 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  547 

law,  and  by  our  law  he  ought  to  die."  The  reason  is  given,  •  because 
he  made  himself  the  Son  of  God."  His  "  blasphemy"  was  alleged  to 
lie  in  this;  this,  therefore,  implied  an  invasion  of  the  rights  and  honours 
of  the  Divine  nature,  and  was,  in  their  view,  an  assumption  of  positive 
Divinity.  Our  Lord,  by  his  conduct,  shows  that  they  did  not  mistake 
his  intention.  He  allows  them  to  proceed  against  him  without  lowering 
his  pretensions,  or  correcting  their  mistake  ;  which,  had  they  really 
fallen  into  one,  as  to  the  import  of  the  title  "  Son  of  God,"  he  must 
have  done,  or  been  accessary  to  his  own  condemnation.  (7) 

As  in  none  of  these  passages  the  title  Son  of  God  can  possibly  be 
considered  as  a  designation  of  his  human  nature  or  office ;  so,  in  the 
apostolic  writings,  we  find  proof  of  equal  force  that  it  is  used  even  by 
way  of  opposition  and  contradistinction  to  the  human  and  inferior  nature. 
Romans  i,  3,  4,  "  Concerning  his  Son  Jesus  Christ  our  Lord,  which  was 
made  of  the  seed  of  David  according  to  the  flesh  ;  and  declared  to  be 
the  Son  of  God  with  power  according  to  the  Spirit  of  holiness,  by  the 
resurrection  from  the  dead."  A  very  few  remarks  will  be  sufficient  to 
point  out  the  force  of  this  passage.  The  apostle,  it  is  to  be  observed, 
is  not  speaking  of  what  Christ  is  officially,  but  of  what  he  is  personally 
and  essentially,  for  the  truth  of  all  his  official  claims  depends  upon  the 
truth  of  his  personal  ones  :  if  he  be  a  Divine  person,  he  is  every  thing 
else  he  assumes  to  be.  He  is,  therefore,  considered  by  the  apostle  dis- 
tinctly in  his  two  natures.  As  a  man  he  was  "flesh,"  "of  the  seed  of 
David,"  and  a  son  of  David  ;  in  a  superior  nature  he  was  Divine,  and 
the  Son  of  God.  To  prove  that  he  was  of  the  seed  of  David,  no  evi- 
dence was  necessary  but  the  Jewish  genealogies  :  to  prove  him  Divine, 
or,  as  the  apostle  chooses  to  express  it,  "  The  Son  of  God,"  evidence 
of  a  higher  kind  was  necessary,  and  it  was  given  in  his  "  resurrection 
from  the  dead."  That  "  declared  him  to  be  the  Son  of  God  with  power,'" 
or  powerfully  determined  and  marked  him  out  to  be  the  Son  of  God,  a 
Divine  person.  That  an  opposition  is  expressed  between  what  Christ 
was  according  to  the  flesh,  and  what  he  was  according  to  a  higher  na- 
ture, must  be  allowed,  or  there  is  no  force  in  the  apostle's  observation  ; 
and  equally  clear  it  must  be,  that  the  nature,  put  in  opposition  to  the 
fleshly  nature,  can  be  no  other  than  the  Divine  nature  of  Christ,  the 
apostolic  designation  of  which  is  the  "  Son  of  God." 

This  opposition  between  the  two  natures  is  sufficiently  marked  for  the 
purpose  of  the  argument,  without  taking  into  account  the  import  of  the 
phrase  in  the  passage  just  quoted,  "  according  to  the  Spirit  of  holiness," 
which,  by  many  critics,  is  considered  as  equivalent  to  "  according  to  his 
Divine  nature." 

(7)  See  this  argument  largely  and  ably  stated  in  Wilson's  «•  Illustration  of  the 
Method  of  explaining  the  New  Testament,  by  the  early  opinions  of  Jews  and 
Christians  concerning  Christ." 


548  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  fPART 

Because  of  the  opposition,  stated  by  the  apostle,  between  what  Christ 
was,  x<*t<x,  according  to,  in  respect  of  the  flesh ;  and  his  being  declared 
the  Son  of  God  with  power,  xa-ra,  according  to,  in  respect  of  "  the  Spirit 
of  holiness  ;"  Macknight,  following  many  others,  interprets  the  "  Spirit 
of  holiness"  to  mean  the  Divine  nature  of  Christ,  as  "  the  flesh"  signifies 
his  whole  human  nature.  To  this  Schleusner  adds  his  authority,  sub 
voce  a^iwCuvrj.  "  Summa  Dei  majestas  et  perfectio,  Rom.  i,  4,  xa<ra 
tfvsu/xa  aytuxfvvYtg.  Quoad  vim  suam  et  majestatem  divinam.  Similiter 
in  vers.  Alex,  non  solum,  Heb.  mn,  Psa.  cxlv,  4,  5,  sed  etiam  rw  w\p 
respondet,  Psa.  xcvii,  12." 

Doddridge  demurs  to  this,  on  the  ground  of  its  being  unusual  in  Scrip, 
ture  to  call  the  Divine  nature  of  Christ  "  the  Spirit  of  holiness,"  or  the 
"  Holy  Spirit."  This  is,  however,  far  from  a  conclusive  objection  :  it  is 
not  so  clear  that  there  are  not  several  instances  of  this  in  Scripture ; 
and  certain  it  is,  that  the  most  ancient  fathers  frequently  use  the  terms 
"Spirit"  and  "  Spirit  of  God,"  to  express  the  Divine  nature  of  our  Lord. 
"  Certissimum  est,"  says  Bishop  Bull,  "  Filium  Dei,  secundum  Deitatis 
hypostasin  in  scriptis  Patrum  titulo  Spiritus,  et  Spiritus  Dei  et  Spiritus 
Sancti  passim  insigniri."  To  this  we  may  add  the  authority  of  many 
other  eminent  critics.  (8) 

The  whole  argument  of  the  Apostle  Paul,  in  the  first  chapter  of  the 
Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  is  designed  to  prove  our  Lord  superior  to  angels, 

(8)  "  We  have  observed  so  often  before,  that  the  Spirit  in  Christ,  especially 
when  opposed  to  the  flesh,  denotes  his  Divine  nature,  that  it  is  needless  to  repeat 
it.  Nor  ought  it  to  seem  strange,  that  Christ,  as  the  Son  of  God,  and  God,  is 
here  called  the  Spirit  of  holiness,  an  appellation  generally  given  to  the  third 
person  of  the  Divinity,  for  the  same  Divine  and  spiritual  nature  is  common  to 
every  person  of  the  trinity.  Hence  we  have  observed,  that  Hermas,  a  cotempo- 
rary  of  St.  Paul,  has  expressly  called  the  Divine  person  of  the  Son  of  God,  a 
Holy  Spirit."  (Bull.)  "  When  the  term  Spirit  refers  to  Christ,  and  is  put  in 
opposition  to  the  flesh,  it  denotes  his  Divine  nature."  (Schtettgen.)  The  same 
view  is  taken  of  the  passage  by  Beza,  Erasmus,  Cameron,  Hammond,  Poole,  and 
Macknight.  The  note  of  Dr.  Guyse  contains  a  powerful  reason  for  this  inter- 
pretation.  "  If  '  the  Spirit  of  holiness'  is  here  considered  as  expressive  of  the 
sense  in  which  Christ  is  '  the  Son  of  God,'  it  evidently  signifies  his  Divine  nature, 
in  opposition  to  what  he  was  according  to  the  flesh  ;  and  so  the  antithesis  is  very 
beautiful  between  Kara  rvcv/ta,  according  to  the  Spirit,  and  Kara  (rapxa,  according  to 
the  flesh.  But  if  we  consider  it  as  the  principle  of  the  power  by  which  Christ  was 
raised  from  the  dead,  for  demonstrating  him  to  be  the  Son  of  God,  it  may  signify 
either  his  own  Divine  nature  or  the  Holy  Spirit,  the  third  person  in  the  adorable 
trinity ;  and  yet,  unless  his  own  Divine  nature  concurred  in  raising  him  from  the 
dead,  his  resurrection,  abstractedly  considered  in  itself,  no  more  proved  him  to  be 
the  Son  of  God,  than  the  resurrection  of  believers,  by  the  power  of  God,  and  by 
•his  Spirit  who  dwelleth  in  them,'  Rom.  viii,  11,  prove  any  of  them  to  be  so." 
It  is  also  in  corroboration  of  this  view  that  Christ  represents  himself  as  the  agent 
of  bis  own  resurrection.  "  I  lay  down  my  life,  and  I  have  power  to  take  it 
again."     "  Destroy  this  temple,  and  in  three  days  I  will  raise  it  up." 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  549 

and  he  adduces,  as  conclusive  evidence  on  this  point,  that  to  none  of  the 
angels  was  it  ever  said,  "  Thou  art  my  Son,  this  day  have  I  begotten 
thee.  And  again,  I  will  be  to  him  a  Father,  and  he  shall  be  to  me  a 
Son."  It  is,  therefore,  clear,  that  on  this  very  ground  of  Sonsliip,  our 
Ijord  is  argued  to  be  superior  to  angels,  that  is,  superior  in  nature,  and 
in  natural  relation  to  God ;  for  in  no  other  way  is  the  argument  con- 
clusi\e.  He  has  his  title  Son,  by  inheritance,  that  is,  by  natural  and 
hereditary  right.  It  is  by  "inheritance"  that  he  hath  obtained  a 
"  more  excellent  name"  than  angels  ;  that  is,  by  his  being  of  the  Father, 
and,  therefore,  by  virtue  of  his  Divine  filiation.  Angels  may  be,  in  an 
inferior  sense,  the  sons  of  God  by  creation ;  but  they  cannot  inherit  that 
title,  for  this  plain  reason,  that  they  are  created  not  begotten ;  while  our 
Lord  inherits  the  " more  excellent  name"  because  he  is  "  begotten"  not 
created.  *  For  unto  which  of  the  angels  said  he  at  any  time,  Thou  art 
my  Son,  this  day  have  I  begotten  thee?"  (9)  The  same  ideas  of 
absolute  Divinity,  connect  themselves  with  the  title  throughout  this 
chapter.  "The  Son,"  by  whom  "  God  in  these  latter  days  hath  spoken 
to  us,"  is  "  the  brightness,  the  effulgence  of  his  glory,  and  the  express, 
or  exact  and  perfect  image  of  his  person."  But  it  is  only  to  the  Divine 
nature  of  our  Lord  that  these  expressions  can  refer.  "  The  brightness 
of  his  glory"  is  a  phrase  in  which  allusion  is  made  to  a  luminous  body 
which  is  made  visible  by  its  own  effulgence.  The  Father  is  compared 
to  the  original  fountain  of  light,  and  the  Son  to  the  effulgence  or  body 
of  rays  streaming  from  it.  Thus  we  are  taught,  that  the  essence  of 
both  is  the  same ;  that  the  one  is  inseparable  from,  and  not  to  be  con  - 
ceived  of  without  the  other ;  consequently,  that  neither  of  them  ever 
was  or  could  be  alone.  The  Son  is  declared  to  be  of  the  same  nature 
and  eternity  with  the  Father ;  "  And  from  hence,  more  particularly,  the 
Church  seems  to  have  taken  the  occasion  of  confessing  in  opposition  to 
the  Arian  heresy,  as  we  find  it  done  in  one  of  our  creeds,  that  '  Jesus 
Christ,  the  only-begotten  Son  of  God,  was  begotten  of  the  Father  be- 
fore  all  worlds,  that  he  is  God  of  God,  Light  of  Light,  very  God  of 
very  God,  of  one  substance  with  the  Father,  by  whom  all  things  are 
made.' "  (Stanhope.)  Certainly,  this  brightness,  or  effulgence  from  the 
Father  is  expressly  spoken  of  the  Son  ;  but  it  cannot  be  affirmed  of 

(9)  It  may  be  granted,  that  (cXijpovo;nu  is  not  always  used  to  express  the  obtain, 
ing  of  a  thing  by  strict  hereditary  right ;  but  also  to  acquire  it  by  other  means, 
though  still  the  idea  of  right  is  preserved.  The  argument  of  the  apostlo,  how- 
ever, compels  us  to  take  the  word  in  its  primary  and  proper  sense,  which  is  well 
expressed  in  our  translation  to  obtain  by  inheritance.  "  The  apostle's  argument, 
taken  from  the  name  Son  of  God,  is  this — he  hath  that  name  by  inheritance,  or 
on  account  of  his  descent  from  God ;  and  Jesus,  by  calling  himself  the  only 
begotten  of  the  Father,  hath  excluded  from  that  honourable  relation  angels  and 
every  other  beings  whatever."  (Macknight.) 


550  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

him  with  reference  to  his  humanity ;  and  if  it  must  necessarily  be 
understood  of  his  superior,  his  Divine  nature,  it  necessarily  implies  the 
idea  which  is  suggested  by  Sonship.  For  if  the  second  person  oi  the 
trinity  were  co-ordinate  and  independent,  in  no  good  sense  could  he  be 
the  effulgence,  the  lustre  of  the  glory  of  the  Father.  He  might  exhibit 
an  equal  and  rival  glory,  as  one  sun  equally  large  and  bright  with 
another ;  but  our  Lord  would,  in  that  case,  be  no  more  an  effulgence  of 
the  glory  of  the  Father  than  one  of  these  suns  would  be  an  effulgence 
of  the  other.  The  "  express  image  of  his  person"  is  equally  a  note  of 
filial  Divinity.  The  word  ^apaxTTjp  signifies  an  impression  or  mark, 
answering  to  a  seal  or  stamp,  or  die,  and  therefore  an  exact  and  perfect 
resemblance,  as  the  figure  on  the  coin  answers  to  the  die  by  which  it  is 
stamped,  and  the  image  on  the  wax  to  the  engraving  on  the  seal.  It  is 
impossible  that  this  should  be  spoken  of  a  creature,  because  it  cannot  be 
true  of  any  creature  ;  and  therefore  not  true  of  the  human  nature  of  our 
Lord.  "  The  sentiment  is,  indeed,  too  high  for  our  ideas  to  reach. 
This,  however,  seems  to  be  fully  implied  in  it,  that  the  Son  is  personally 
distinct  from  the  Father,  for  the  impression  and  the  seal  are  not  one 
thing,  and  that  the  essential  nature  of  both  is  one  and  the  same,"  (Dr. 
P.  Smith,)  since  one  is  so  the  exact  and  perfect  image  of  the  other, 
that  our  Lord  could  say,  "  He  that  hath  seen  me  hath  seen  the  Father." 
(1)  Still,  however,  the  likeness  is  not  that  of  one  independent,  and 
unrelated  being  to  another,  as  of  man  to  man  ;  but  the  more  perfect  one 
of  Son  to  Father.  So  it  is  expressly  affirmed ;  for  it  is  "  the  Son" 
who  is  this  "  express  image  :"  nor  would  the  resemblance  of  one  inde- 
pendent Divine  person  to  another  come  up  to  the  idea  conveyed  by 
%apaxr>]p  <ms  vtfodradeug.  Both  this  and  the  preceding  phrase,  the 
"  brightness  of  his  glory,"  with  sufficient  clearness  denote  not  only 
sameness  of  essence  and  distinction  of  person,  but  dependence  and  com- 
munication also ;  ideas  which  are  preserved  and  harmonized  in  the 
doctrine  of  the  Sonship  of  Christ,  and  in  no  other. 

In  the  same  conjunction  of  the  term  Son  with  ideas  of  absolute 
Divinity,  the  apostle,  in  a  subsequent  part  of  the  same  chapter,  applies 
bat  lofty  passage  in  the  forty-fifth  Psalm,  "  But  unto  the  Son  he  saith, 
Thy  throne,  O  God,  is  for  ever  and  ever,"  &c.  The  Socinian  criticisms 
on  this  passage  have  already  been  refuted  ;  and  it  is  only  necessary  to 
remark  on  this  passage  as  it  is  in  proof  of  the  Divine  Sonship.  It  is 
allowed,  by  all  who  hold  his  Deity,  that  Christ  is  here  addressed  as  a 
being  composed  of  two  natures,  God  and  man.  "  The  unction  with  the 
'  oil  of  gladness,''  and  the  elevation  above  his  'fellows?  characterize  the 
manhood ;  and  the  perpetual  stability  of  his  throne,  and  the  unsullied 

(1)  "  Imago  majestatis  Divines,  ita,  ut,  qui  Filium  videt,  etiam  Patrem  videat." 
(Schleusner.) 


SECOND  J  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES  551 

justice  of  the  government,  declare  the  Godhead."  (Bishop  Ilorsley.) 
He  is,  however,  called  the  Son  ;  but  this  is  a  term  which  could  not 
characterize  the  Being  here  introduced,  unless  it  agreed  to  his  higher 
and  Divine  nature.  The  Son  is  addressed  ;  that  Son  is  addressed  as 
God,  as  God  whose  throne  is  for  ever  and  ever ;  and  by  this  argument 
it  is  that  the  apostle  proves  the  Son  to  be  superior  to  angels. 

A  few  other  passages  may  be  introduced,  which,  with  equal  demon- 
stiation,  attach  the  term  Son,  eminently  and  emphatically,  to  our  Lord's 
Divine  nature. 

"  God  sending  his  own  Son,  in  the  likeness  of  sinful  flesh,"  Romans 
viii,  3.  Here  the  person  entitled  the  Son,  is  said  to  be  sent  in  the  like, 
ness  of  sinful  flesh.  In  what  other  way  could  he  have  been  sent,  if  he 
were  Soti  only  as  a  man  ?  The  apostle  most  clearly  intimates  that  he 
was  Son  before  he  was  sent;  and  that  flesh  was  the  nature  assumed 
by  the  Son,  but  not  the  nature  in  which  he  was  the  Son,  as  he  there  uses 
the  term. 

"  Moses,  verily,  was  faithful  in  all  his  house  as  a  servant,  but  Christ 
as  a  Son  over  his  own  house."  "  This  is  illustrative  of  the  position 
before  laid  down,  (verse  3,)  that  Jesus  was  counted  worthy  of  more 
glory  than  Moses.  The  Jewish  lawgiver  was  only  '  as  a  servant,'  but 
Christ  *  as  a  Son  ;'  but  if  the  latter  were  only  a  Son  in  a  metaphorical 
sense,  the  contrast  would  be  entirely  destroyed ;  he  could  only  be  a 
servant,  like  Moses,  and  the  grounds  of  his  superiority,  as  a  Son,  would 
be  completely  subverted  ;  he  must,  therefore,  be  a  Son  in  respect  to  his 
Divine  nature.  In  conformity  with  this  conclusion,  it  is  here  said  that 
Moses  was  faithful  in  all  his  house  as  a  servant  in  the  Jewish  Church, 
but  Christ  was  faithful  over  his  own  house  ;  over  the  Christian  Church 
as  its  Lord  and  Master."  (Holderi's  Testimonies.)  "  Moses  erat  ev  <ru 
oixw,  et  pertinebat  ad  familiam ;  Christus  vero  s«ri  rov  oixov,  supra  fami- 
liam,  ut  ejus  pnefectus  et  dominius."  (Rosenmuller.)  "  He  says  that 
Moses  was  faithful  as  a  servant — Christ  as  a  Son,  and  that  Christ  was 
counted  worthy  of  more  glory  than  Moses,  inasmuch  as  he  who  hath 
builded  the  house  hath  more  honour  than  the  house ;  that  is,  the  differ- 
ence  between  Christ  and  Moses  is  that  which  is  between  him  who  creates 
and  the  thing  created."  (Bishop  Tomline.)  To  be  a  Son  is  then,  in  the 
apostle's  sense  of  the  passage,  to  be  a  Creator ;  and  to  be  a  servant,  a 
creature  ;  a  decisive  proof  that  Christ  is  called  Son,  as  God,  because  he 
s  put  in  contradistinction  to  a  creature. 

To  these  may  be  added  all  those  passages  in  which  the  first  person  is 
called  the  Father  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ ;  because  as,  when  the 
persons  are  distinctly  spoken  of,  it  is  clear,  that  he  who  produced  the 
human  nature  of  Christ,  in  the  womb  of  the  virgin,  was  the  third 
person,  a  fact  several  times  emphatically  and  expressly  declared  in  the 
New  Testament ;  so,  as  far  as  natural  relation  is  concerned,  the  first 


552  THEOLOGICAL   INSTITUTES.  [PART 

person  can  only  have  paternity  with  reference  to  the  Divine  nature  of 
the  Son ;  and  we  are  reduced  to  admit,  either  that  the  terms  Father  and 
Son  are  wholly  figurative,  or  that  they  express  a  natural  relation,  which 
relation,  however,can  only  subsist  between  these  persons  in  the  Godhead. 

"For,"  as  it  has  been  very  justly  observed,  "at  the  very  same  time 
that  our  Lord,  most  expressly,  calls  the  first  person  of  the  Godhead  his 
Father,  he  makes  the  plainest  distinction  that  is  possible  between  the 
Father,  as  such,  and  the  Holy  Ghost.  By  the  personal  acts  which  he 
ascribes  to  the  Spirit  of  God,  he  distinguishes  the  first  person,  as  his 
Father,  from  the  third  person  of  the  Divine  essence ;  for,  he  said,  <  I 
will  pray  the  Father,  and  he  shall  give  you  another  Comforter,  that  he 
may  abide  with  you  for  ever,  even  the  Spirit  of  truth  '  This  Comforter, 
said  he,  '  is  the  Holy  Ghost,  whom  the  Father  will  send  in  my  name. 
But  when  the  Comforter  is  come,  whom  I  will  send  unto  you  from  the 
Father,  even  the  Spirit  of  truth,  which  proceedeth  from  the  Father,  he 
shall  testify  of  me,'  John  xiv,  16,  17,  26 ;  xv,  26.  Here  our  Lord 
calls  the  first  person,  most  expressly  and  undeniably,  '  the  Father,'  and 
the  third  person,  as  expressly  'the  Holy  Ghost.'  It  is  most  evident, 
and  beyond  even  the  possibility  of  a  doubt,  that  he  does  not,  by  these 
two  appellatives,  mean  one  and  the  self-same  Divine  person ;  for  he 
says,  he  'will  pray  the  Father'  to  send  the  Comforter  to  his  Church, 
calling  him  « the  Holy  Ghost,  whom  the  Father  will  send  in  his  name.' 
And  he  sends  «  the  Holy  Ghost,  the  Spirit  of  truth,  from  the  Father, 
which  proceedeth  from  the  Father.'  Therefore,  the  Holy  Ghost  is  not 
that  Father,  nor  the  self-same  subsistent  as  that  Father,  nor  is  the 
creation  of  the  human  nature  the  only  begetting,  or  the  Scriptural 
Sonship  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ ;  for,  if  this  were  really  so,  the  Fa- 
ther would  be  sending  forth  the  Father,  and  the  Father  would  be  pro- 
ceeding from  the  Father,  and  the  Son  would  be  praying  for  all  this. 
But  these  are  absurdities  too  glaring  to  be  indulged  for  a  single  mo- 
ment by  common  sense ;  so  that  we  conceive  it  must  be  as  clear  as 
the  light  of  heaven,  that  the  first  and  second  persons  of  the  Godhead 
are  to  each  other  a  Father  and  a  Son  in  the  Divine  essence."  {Mar- 
tin on  the  Eternal  Sonship  of  Christ.) 

Thus,  then,  from  the  import  of  these  passages,  and  many  others 
might  be  added,  were  it  necessary,  I  think  that  it  is  established,  that 
Ihe  title  Son  of  God  is  not  an  appellative  of  the  human  nature  ap- 
plied by  metonymy  to  the  Divine  nature,  as  the  objectors  say,  and  that 
it  cannot,  on  this  hypothesis,  be  explained.  As  little  truth  will  be 
found  in  another  theory,  adopted  by  those  who  admit  the  Divinity  of 
our  Lotd,  but  deny  his  eternal  filiation ; — that  he  is  called  "  Son  of 
God"  on  account  of  his  incarnation :  that  in  the  Old  Testament  he 
was  so  called  in  anticipation  of  this  event,  and  in  the  New  because  of 
the  fact  that  he  was  God  manifest  in  the  flesh. 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  553 

As,  however,  all  such  persons  acknowledge  the  title  "  Son  of  God"  to 
be  a  descriptive,  not  an  arbitrary  title,  and  that  it  has  its  foundation  in 
some  real  relation  ;  so,  if  the  incarnation  of  Christ  be  the  foundation  of 
that  title,  it  must  be  used  with  reference  either  to  the  nature  in  which 
he  was  incarnated,  that  is  to  say,  his  manhood ;  or  to  that  which  incar 
nated  itself,  that  is  to  say,  his  Godhead ;  or  to  the  action  of  incarnation 
that  is  the  act  of  assuming  our  nature.  If  the  first  be  allowed,  then  this 
is  saying  no  more  than  that  he  is  the  Son  of  God,  because  of  his  mira- 
culous conception  in  the  womb  of  the  virgin,  which  has  been  already 
refuted.  If  the  second,  then  it  is  yielded,  that,  with  reference  to  the 
Godhead,  he  is  the  Son,  which  is  what  we  contend  for ;  and  it  is 
allowed,  that  the  "  holy  thing,"  or  offspring,  born  of  Mary,  is,  therefore, 
called  the  Son  of  God,  not  because  his  humanity  was  formed  in  her 
womb  immediately  by  God  ;  but,  as  it  is  expressly  stated  in  Luke  i,  35, 
because  "  the  Holy  Ghost  shall  come  upon  thee,  and  the  power  of  the 
Highest  shall  overshadow  thee,"  the  effect  of  which  would  be  the 
assumption  of  humanity  by  the  Divine  nature  of  him  who  is,  in  that 
nature,  the  Son ;  and  that  the  holy  offspring  should,  on  that  account,  be 
called  the  Son  of  God.  This  would  fully  allow  the  doctrine  of  Christ's 
Divine  Sonship,  and  is,  probably,  the  real  import  of  the  important 
passage  referred  to.  (2)  But  if  the  title  Son  is  given  to  Christ,  neither 
with  reference  to  the  miraculous  conception  of  the  human  nature,  nor 
yet  because  the  higher  nature  united  to  it  in  one  person  is,  eminently 
and  peculiarly,  the  Son  of  God  ;  then  it  only  remains  to  those  who  refer 
the  title  to  the  incarnation  of  our  Lord,  to  urge  that  it  is  given  to  him 
with  reference  to  the  act  of  incarnation,  that  is   to   say,  the  act  of 

(2)  Many  interpreters  understand  by  "  the  power  of  the  Highest,"  which 
overshadowed  the  virgin,  the  second  person  of  the  trinity,  who  then  took  part  of 
our  nature.  See  Wolfii  Cur.  in  loc.  Most  of  them,  however,  refer  both  clauses 
to  the  Holy  Spirit.  But  still,  if  the  reason  why  the  "  holy  thing,"  which  was  to 
be  born  of  Mary,  derived  its  special  and  peculiar  sanctity  from  the  personal 
union  of  the  Divinity  with  the  manhood,  the  reason  of  its  being  called  the  Son 
of  God  will  be  found  rather  in  that  to  which  the  humanity  was  thus  united  than 
in  itself.  The  remarks  of  Professor  Kidd,  in  his  "  Dissertation  on  the  Eternal 
Sonship  of  Christ,"  are  also  worthy  consideration.  "  Our  Lord's  human 
nature  had  never  subsistence  by  itself."  "  That  nature  never  had  personality  of 
itself."  "  Hence  our  Lord  is  the  Son  of  God,  with  respect  to  his  Divine  nature, 
which  alone  was  capable  of  Sonship.  The  question  to  be  decided  is,  what  object 
was  termed  the  Son  of  God  ?  Was  it  the  human  nature  considered  by  itself  ? 
This  it  could  not  be,  seeing  that  the  humanity  never  existed  by  itself,  without 
inhering  in  the  Divinity.  Was  it  the  humanity  and  Divinity,  when  united, 
which,  in  consequence  of  their  union,  obtained  this  as  a  mere  appellation  ?  We 
apprehend  that  it  was  not.  We  conceive,  that  the  peculiarly  appropriate 
name  of  our  Lord's  Divine  person  is  Son  of  God — that  his  person  was  not 
changed  by  the  assumption  of  humanity,  and  that  it  is  his  eternal  person, 
in  the  complex  natures  of  Divinity  and  humanity,  which  is  denominated  Son 
of  God." 


554  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

assuming  our  nature.  Now,  it  is  impossible  to  maintain  this,  because  it 
lias  no  support  from  Scripture.  The  passage  in  Luke  i,  35,  has  been 
adduced,  but  that  admits  certainly  only  of  one  of  the  two  interpretations 
above  given.  Either  the  coming  of  the  Holy  Ghost  upon  the  virgin, 
and  the  overshadowing  of  the  power  of  the  Highest,  refer  to  the  imme- 
diate production  of  the  humanity  by  Divine  power,  so  that  for  this  rea- 
son he  is  called  the  Son  of  God,  which  might  be  allowed  without 
excluding  a  higher  and  more  emphatic  reason  for  the  appellation  ;  or  it 
expresses  the  assumption  of  human  nature  through  the  "  power  of  the 
Highest,"  by  the  Divine  nature  of  Christ,  so  that  "  the  holy  offspring" 
should  be  called  "  the  Son  of  God,"  not  because  a  Divine  person 
assumed  humanity,  but  because  that  Divine  person  was  antecedently 
the  Son  of  God,  and  is  spoken  of  as  such  by  the  prophets.  The  mere 
act  of  assuming  our  nature  gives  no  idea  of  the  relationship  of  a  Son  ; 
it  is  neither  a  paternal  nor  a  filial  act  in  any  sense,  nor  expresses  any 
such  relation.  It  was  an  act'  of  the  Son  alone ;  "  forasmuch  as  the 
children  are  partakers  of  flesh  and  blood,  he  also  took  part  of  the 
same  ; "  and,  as  his  own  act,  it  could  never  place  him  in  the  relation  of 
Son  to  the  Father.  It  was  done,  it  is  true,  in  pursuance  of  the  will  of 
the  Father,  who  "  sent  him"  on  this  errand  of  mercy  into  the  world ; 
but  it  was  still  an  act  done  by  the  Son,  and  could  not  lay  the  foundation 
of  a  filial  title  and  character.  This  hypothesis  cannot,  therefore,  he 
supported.  If,  then,  the  title  "  Son  of  God,"  as  given  to  our  Lord,  i3 
not  used  chiefly,  probably  not  at  all,  with  reference  to  his  miraculous 
conception  ;  if  it  is  not  an  appellative  of  his  human  nature,  occasionally 
applied  to  him  when  Divine  acts  and  relations  are  spoken  of,  as  any 
other  human  appellation,  by  metonymy,  might  be  applied ;  if  it  is  not 
given  him  simply  because  of  his  assuming  our  nature ;  if  we  find  it  so 
used,  that  it  can  be  fully  explained  by  no  office  with  which  he  is  invested 
and  by  no  event  of  his  mediatorial  undertaking  ;  it  then  follows,  that  it 
is  a  title  characteristic  of  his  mode  of  existence  in  the  Divine  essence, 
and  of  the  relation  which  exists  between  the  first  and  second  persons  in 
the  ever  blessed  trinity.  Nor  is  it  to  be  regarded  as  a  matter  of  indif- 
ference, whether  we  admit  the  eternal  filiation  of  our  Lord,  provided  we 
acknowledge  his  Divinity.  It  is  granted,  that  some  divines,  truly 
decided  on  this  point,  have  rejected  the  Divine  Sonship.  But  in  this 
they  have  gone  contrary  to  the  judgment  of  the  Churches  of  Christ  in 
all  ages ;  and  they  would  certainly  have  been  ranked  among  heretics 
in  the  first  and  purest  times  of  the  primitive  Church,  as  Bishop  Bull  has 
largely  and  most  satisfactorily  shown  in  his  "  Judgment  of  the  Catholic 
Church  ;"  nor  would  their  professions  of  faith  in  the  Divinity  of  Christ 
have  secured  them  from  the  suspicion  of  being  allies  in  some  sort  of 
the  common  enemies  of  the  faith,  nor  have  been  sufficient  to  guard 
them  from  the  anathemas  with  which  the  fathers  so  carefully  guarded 


SECOND]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  555 

the  sacred  doctrine  of  Scripture  respecting  the  person  of  our  Lord. 
Such  theologians  have  usually  rejected  the  doctrine,  too,  on  dangerous 
grounds,  and  have  resorted  to  modes  of  interpretation,  so  forced  and 
unwarrantable,  that,  if  turned  against  the  doctrines  which  they  them- 
selves hold  sacred,  would  tend  greatly  to  unsettle  them.  In  these  re- 
spects they  have  often  adopted  the  same  modes  of  attack,  and  objec- 
tions of  the  same  character,  as  those  which  Arians  and  Socinians  have 
wielded  against  the  doctrine  of  the  trinity  itself,  and  have  thus  placed 
themselves  in  suspicious  company  and  circumstances.  The  very  alle- 
gation that  the  Divine  Sonship  of  Christ  is  a  mere  speculation,  of  no 
importance,  provided  his  Divinity  be  held,  is  itself  calculated  to  awa- 
ken vigilance,  since  the  most  important  doctrines  have  sometimes 
been  stolen  away  "  while  men  have  slept,"  and  the  plea  which  has 
lulled  them  into  security  has  always  been,  that  they  were  not  funda- 
mental. I  would  not,  indeed,  say  that  the  doctrine  in  question  is  funda- 
mental. I  am  not  indisposed  to  give  up  that  point  with  Episcopius 
and  Waterland,  who  both  admitted  the  Divine  Sonship,  though  I  would 
not  concede  its  fundamental  character  on  the  same  grounds  as  the  for- 
mer, but  with  the  caution  of  the  latter,  who  had  views  much  more  cor- 
rect on  the  question  of  fundamental  truths.  But,  though  the  Sonship 
of  Christ  may  be  denied  by  some  who  hold  his  Divinity,  they  do  not 
carry  out  their  own  views  into  their  logical  conclusions,  or  it  would 
appear  that  their  notions  of  the  trinity  greatly  differ,  in  consequence, 
from  those  which  are  held  by  the  believers  in  this  doctrine ;  and  that 
on  a  point,  confessedly  fundamental,  they  are,  in  some  important  re- 
spects, at  issue  with  the  orthodox  of  all  ages.  This  alone  demands 
their  serious  reflection,  and  ought  to  induce  caution ;  but  other  consi- 
derations are  not  wanting  to  show  that  points  of  great  moment  are 
involved  in  the  denial  or  maintenance  of  the  doctrine  in  question. 

1.  The  loose  and  general  manner  in  which  many  passages  of  Scrip 
ture,  which  speak  of  Christ  as  a  Son,  must  be  explained  by  those  who 
deny  the  Divine  filiation  of  Christ,  seems  to  sanction  principles  of 
interpretation  which  would  be  highly  dangerous,  or  rather  absolutely 
fatal,  if  generally  applied  to  the  Scriptures. 

2.  The  denial  of  the  Divine  Sonship  destroys  all  relation  among 
the  persons  of  the  Godhead ;  for  no  other  relation  of  the  hypostases 
are  mentioned  in  Scripture,  save  those  which  are  expressed  by  pater- 
nity, filiation,  and  procession;  every  other  relation  is  merely  economi- 
cal ;  and  these  natural  relations  being  removed,  we  must  then  con- 
ceive of  the  persons  in  the  Godhead  as  perfectly  independent  of  each 
other,  a  view  which  has  a  strong  tendency  to  endanger  the  unity  of 
the  essence.  (3) 

(3)  "  According  to  the  opinion  of  the  ancients,  which  is  also  the  voice  of 
common  sense,  if  there  were  two  unbegotten  or  independent  principles  in  the 


55t>  THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES.  [PART 

3.  It  is  the  doctrine  of  the  Divine  paternity  only  which  preserves  the 
Scriptural  idea  that  the  Father  is  the  fountain  of  Deity,  and,  as  such, 
the  first,  the  original,  the  principle.  Certainly,  he  must  have  read  the 
Scriptures  to  little  purpose,  who  does  not  perceive  that  this  is  their 
constant  doctrine — that  "  of  him  are  all  things ;"  that  though  the  Son 
is  Creator,  yet  that  it  was  "  by  the  Son"  the  Father  made  the  worlds ; 
and  that,  as  to  the  Son,  he  himself  has  declared,  "  that  he  lives  by  the 
Father,"  and  that  the  Father  hath  given  him  to  have  life  in  himself, 
which  can  only  refer  to  his  Divine  nature,  nothing  being  the  source  of 
life  in  itself  but  what  is  Divine ;  a  view  which  is  put  out  of  all  doubt  by 
the  declaration,  that  by  the  gift  of  the  Father,  the  Son  hath  life  in  him- 
self,  "  as  the  Father  hath  life  in  himself."  But  where  the  essential 
paternity  of  the  Father  and  the  correlative  filiation  of  the  Son  are  denied, 
these  Scriptural  representations  have  no  foundation  in  fact,  and  are  inca- 
pable of  interpretation.  The  term  Son  at  once  preseives  the  Scriptural 
character  of  the  Father,  and  sets  up  an  everlasting  barrier  against  the 
Arian  heresy  of  inferiority  of  essence ;  for,  as  Son,  he  must  be  of  the 
same  essence  as  the  Father. 

4.  The  Scriptural  doctrines  of  the  perfect  equality  of  the  Son,  so 
that  he  is  truly  God,  equal  in  glory  and  perfection  to  the  Father,  being 
of  the  same  nature  ;  and,  at  the  same  time,  the  subordination  of  the 
Son  to  the  Father,  so  that  he  should  be  capable  of  being  "  sent,"  are 
only  to  be  equally  maintained  by  the  doctrine  of  the  Divine  Sonship. — 
According  to  those  who  deny  this  doctrine,  the  Son  might  as  well  be 
the  first  as  the  second  person  in  the  Godhead ;    and  the  Father  the 

Divinity,  the  consequence  would  be,  that  not  only  the  Father  would  be  deprived 
of  his  pre-eminence,  being  of  and  from  himself  alone  ;  but  also,  that  there  would 
necessarily  be  two  Gods.  On  the  other  hand,  supposing  the  subordination,  by 
which  the  Father  is  God  of  himself,  and  the  Son  God  of  God,  the  doctors  have 
thought  both  the  Father's  pre-eminence  and  the  Divine  monarchy  safe."  {Bishop 
Bull.) 

"  As  it  is  admitted,  that  there  are  three  persons  in  the  Godhead,  these  three 
must  exist,  either  independently  of  each  other,  or  in  related  states.  If  they 
exist  independently  of  each  other,  they  are,  then,  each  an  independent  per- 
son, and  may  act  independently  and  separately  from  the  rest ;  consequently, 
there  would  be  three  independent  and  separate  Deities  existing  in  the  Divine 
essence"  (Kidd.) 

The  orthodox  faith  keeps  us  at  the  utmost  distance  from  this  error.  "  The 
Father,"  says  Bishop  Bull,  "  is  the  principle  of  the  Son  and  Holy  Spirit,  and 
both  are  propagated  from  him  by  an  interior  production,  not  an  external  one. — 
Hence  it  is,  that  they  are  not  only  of  the  Father,  but  in  him,  and  the  Father  in 
them ;  and  that  one  person  cannot  be  separate  from  another  in  the  holy 
trinity,  as  three  human  persons,  or  three  other  subjects  of  the  same  species  are 
separate.  This  kind  of  existing  in,  if  I  may  so  say,  our  divines  call  circumince*. 
sion,  because  by  it  some  things  are  very  much  distinguished  from  one  another 
without  separation  ;  are  in,  and  as  it  were,  penetrate  one  another,  without  con- 
fusion." (Judgment  of  the  Catholic  Church.) 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  557 

second  as  well  as  the  first.  The  Father  might  have  been  sent  by  the 
Son,  without  incongruity ;  or  either  of  them  by  the  Holy  Spirit.  On 
the  same  ground,  the  order  of  the  solemn  Christian  form  of  blessing,  in 
the  name  of  the  Father,  Son,  and  Spirit,  so  often  introduced  in  the  New 
Testament,  is  grounded  on  no  reason  whatever,  and  might  be  altered  at 
pleasure.  These  are  most  violent  and  repulsive  conclusions,  which  the 
doctrine  of  the  Sonship  avoids,  and  thus  proves  its  accordance  with  the 
Holy  Scriptures. 

5.  The  love  of  the  Father,  in  the  gift  of  his  Son,  a  doctrine  so  empha- 
tically and  so  frequently  insisted  upon  in  Scripture,  can  have  no  place 
at  all  in  the  religious  system  of  those  who  deny  the  relations  of  Father 
and  Son  to  exist  in  the  Godhead.  This  I  take  to  be  fatal  to  the  doc- 
trine ;  for  it  insensibly  runs  into  the  Socinian  heresy,  and  restricts  the 
love  of  the  Father,  in  the  gift  of  his  Son,  to  the  gift  of  a  man  only,  if  the 
Sonship  of  Christ  be  human  only ;  and,  in  that  case,  the  permission  of 
the  sufferings  of  Christ  was  no  greater  a  manifestation  of  God's  love  to 
the  world  than  his  permitting  any  other  good  man  to  die  for  the  benefit 
of  his  fellow  creatures, — St.  Paul,  for  instance,  or  any  of  the  martyrs. 
Episcopius,  though  he  contends  against  the  doctrine  of  the  Divine  Son- 
ship  of  our  Lord  being  considered  as  fundamental,  yet  argues  the  truth 
of  the  doctrine  on  this  very  ground. 

"  We  have  thus  far  adduced  those  passages  of  Scripture  from  which 
we  believe  it  evident,  that  something  more  is  ascribed  to  Jesus  Christ 
than  can  possibly  belong  to  him  under  the  consideration  of  man  born  of 
a  virgin ;  nay,  something  is  attributed  to  him  which  not  obscurely 
argues,  that,  before  he  was  born  of  the  virgin,  he  had  been,  (fuisse 
ataue  extilisse,)  and  had  existed  as  the  Son  of  God  the  Father.  The 
reasons  derived  from  Scripture  which  seem  to  demonstrate  this  are  the 
following : — 

"First,  from  John  v,  18,  and  x,  33,  it  is  apparent,  that  Jesus  Christ 
had  spoken  in  such  a  manner  to  the  Jews,  that  they  either  understood 
or  believed  that  nothing  less  than  this  was  spoken  by  Christ,  that  he 
attributed  to  himself  something  greater  than  could  be  attributed  to  a 
human  being,"  &e.  After  proceeding  to  elucidate  these  two  passages 
at  some  length,  Episcopius  adds, 

"  The  second  reason  is,  it  is  certain  the  charity  and  love  of  God  is 
amazingly  elevated  and  extolled,  by  which  he  sent  his  own  and  only- 
begotten  Son  into  the  world,  and  thus  gave  him  up,  even  to  the  death 
of  the  cross,  to  save  sinners,  who  are  the  sons  of  God's  wrath. — (John 
iii,  16  ;  Rom.  v,  10,  and  viii,  32  ;  1  John  iv,  9,  10.)  But  if  the  only, 
begotten  Son  of  God  has  no  signification  except  Jesus  with  regard  to  his 
humanity  and  his  being  born  of  a  virgin,  the  reason  is  not  so  apparent 
why  this  love  should  be  so  amazingly  enhanced,  as  it  is  when  God" 
only-begotten  Son  signifies  the  Son  who  was  begotten  of  the  Father  before 


558  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  iPART 

all  ages^  For  that  Son,  who  was  born  of  the  Virgin  Mary,  was  born 
of  her  for  this  very  purpose — that  he  might  be  delivered  to  death  for 
sinners.  But  what  pre-eminence  of  love  is  there  in  the  fact  of  God 
delivering  this,  his  Son,  to  death,  whom  it  was  his  will  to  be  born  of 
Mary,  and  to  be  conceived  of  his  Holy  Spirit,  with  the  intention  that 
he  should  die  for  sinners?  But  if  you  form  a  conception  of  the  Son  of 
God,  who  was  begotten  of  his  Father  before  (ante  secula)  all  worlds  ; 
whom  it  was  not  compulsory  to  send  into  the  world,  and  who  was 
under  no  obligation  to  become  man  ;  whose  dignity  was  greater  than 
allowed  him  to  be  involuntarily  sent  or  to  come  into  flesh,  much  less 
that  he  should  be  delivered  to  death  ;  nay,  who,  as  the  only-begotten 
and  sole  Son,  appeared  dearer  to  the  Father  than  to  be  thrust  out  from 
him  into  this  misery.  When  you  have  formed  this  conception  in  your 
mind,  then  will  the  splendour  and  glory  of  the  Divine  charity  and  love 
toward  the  human  race  shine  forth  with  the  greater  intensity."  (Epis* 
copii  Inst.  Theol.) 

To  the  doctrine  of  our  Lord's  eternal  Sonship  some  objections  have 
been  made,  drawn  from  the  supposed  reason  and  nature  of  things  ;  but 
they  admit  of  an  easy  answer.  The  first  is,  "  If  the  Son  be  of  the 
Father  in  any  way  whatsoever,  there  must  have  been  a  commencement 
of  his  existence."  To  this  objection  the  following  is  a  satisfactory 
answer : — 

"  As  sure,  they  are  ready  to  argue,  as  every  effect  is  posterior  to  its 
cause,  so  must  Christ  have  been  posterior  to  that  God  of  whom  he  is 
the  effect,  or  emanation,  or  offspring,  or  Son,  or  image,  or  by  whatever 
other  name  you  please  to  call  him.  Hence  a  Socinian  writer  says, 
*  The  invention  of  men  has  been  long  enough  upon  the  rack  to  prove, 
in  opposition  to  common  sense  and  reason,  that  an  effect  may  be  co- 
eternal  with  the  unoriginate  cause  that  produced  it.  But  the  proposition 
has  mystery  and  falsehood  written  in  its  forehead,  and  is  only  fit  to  be 
joined  with  transubstantiation,  and  other  mysteries  of  the  same  nature.' 
If  these  terms  are  properly  taken,  it  will  be  found,  that  though  every 
effect  may  be  said  to  be  posterior  to  its  cause,  it  is  merely  in  the  order 
of  nature,  and  not  of  time  ;  and,  in  point  of  fact,  every  effect,  properly 
so  called,  is  co-existent  with  its  cause,  and  must,  of  necessity,  exactly 
answer  to  it,  both  in  magnitude  and  duration  ;  so  that  an  actually  infi- 
nite and  eternal  cause  implies  an  actually  infinite  and  eternal  effect. 

"  Many  seem  to  imagine,  as  the  words,  cause  and  effect,  must  be 
placed  one  after  the  other,  and  the  thing  intended  by  the  latter  is  dif- 
ferent from  what  is  meant  by  the  former,  that,  therefore,  a  cause  must 
precede  its  effect,  at  least  some  very  short  time.  But  they  ought  to 
consider,  that  if  any  thing  be  a  cause,  it  is  a  cause.  It  cannot  be  a 
cause  and  the  cause  of  nothing  ;  no,  not  for  the  least  conceivable  space 
of  time.     Whatever  effect  it  may  produce  hereafter,  it  is  not  the  actual 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL   INSTITUTES.  559 

cause  of  it  till  it  is  actually  in  being ;  nor  can  it  be  in  the  very  nature 
of  things. 

"  Now,  suppose  I  should  call  the  Son  of  God  the  infinite  and  eternal 
effect  of  an  infinite  and  eternal  cause ;  however  the  terms  of  the  pro- 
position  might  be  cavilled  with,  and  however  sophistry  avail  itself  of  the 
imperfection  of  human  language  and  the  ambiguity  of  words  to  puzzle 
the  subject,  in  the  sense  in  which  I  take  the  terms,  cause  and  effect, 
the  proposition  is  true,  and  cannot  be  successfully  controverted.  And 
though  I  would  by  no  means  affect  such  language,  yet  I  should  be  justi- 
fied in  its  use  by  the  early  orthodox  writers  of  the  Church,  both  Greek 
and  Latin,  (4)  who  do  not  hesitate  to  call  the  Father  the  cause  of  the 
Son  ;  though  the  Latins  generally  preferred  using  the  term  principium, 
which,  in  such  a  connection,  is  of  the  same  import  as  cause.  Nor  can 
we  consider  the  following  words  of  our  blessed  Redeemer  in  any  other 
view  :  '  I  live  by  the  Father,'  John  vi,  57,  and  «  As  the  Father  hath  life 
in  himself,  so  hath  he  given  to  the  Son  to  have  life  in  himself,'  John  v, 
26.  Such  language  can  never  be  understood  of  the  mere  humanity  of 
Christ.  When  the  early  ecclesiastical  writers  used  the  terms  in  ques- 
tion, it  was  not  with  the  most  distant  intention  of  intimating  any  infe- 
riority of  nature  in  the  Son.  And  when  they  called  him  '  God  of  God,' 
they  never  meant  to  represent  him  as  a  creature.  Therefore,  it  was 
added  to  the  expression,  in  the  Nicene  Creed,  '  Light  of  Light,  very 
God  of  very  God,  begotten,  not  made,  being  of  one  substance,'  or  nature, 
1  with  the  Father  and  the  Maker  of  all  things.'  They  neither  confound 
the  persons,  nor  divide  the  substance  of  the  Godhead.  And  we  shall 
soon  see  that,  in  this,  they  followed  the  obvious  and  undoubted  meaning 
of  the  word  of  God.  They  made  use  of  the  very  best  terms  they  could 
find  in  human  language,  to  explain  the  truth  of  God,  in  a  most  import- 
ant article  of  faith,  and  to  defend  it  against  the  insidious  attacks  of 
heresy.  And  if  those  who  affect  to  despise  them  would  study  their 
writings  with  candour,  they  would  find  that,  though  they  were  men, 
and  as  such  liable  to  err,  they  were  great  men,  and  men  who  thought 
as  well  as  wrote ;  who  thought  deeply  on  the  things  of  God,  and  did 
not  speak  at  random. 

"  Some  persons  think  they  reduce  the  doctrine,  in  question,  to  an 
absurdity,  by  saying, '  If  the  Father  generate  the  Son,  he  must  either  be 
always  generating  him,  or  an  instant  must  be  supposed  when  his  gene 
ration  was  completed.  On  the  former  supposition,  the  Son  is  and  must 
ever  remain  imperfect,  and,  in  fact,  ungenerated  ;  on  the  latter,  we  must 
allow  that  he  cannot  be  eternal.'  No  one  can  talk  in  this  manner,  who 
has  not  first  confounded  time  with  eternity,  the  creature  with  the  Crea- 
tor ;  beings  whose  existence,  and  modes,  and  relations  are  swallowed 

(4)  See  Bull's  Defensie  Fidei  Nicaenao,  and  the  notes  of  Bishop  Pearson  s 
most  excellent  work  on  the  Creed. 


560  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PAKT 

up  and  lost  in  the  Divine  eternity  and  immensity  with  him  who  is,  in  all 
essential  respects,  eternal  and  infinite.  The  orthodox  maintain  that  the 
Son  of  God  is  what  he  is  from  everlasting,  as  well  as  the  Father.  His 
generation  no  more  took  place  in  any  imaginary  point  of  eternity  than 
it  took  place  in  time.  Indeed  all  duration,  which  is  commenced,  is  time, 
and  time  it  must  ever  remain.  Though  it  may  never  end,  it  can  never 
be  actual  eternity  ;  nor  can  any  being,  whose  existence  has  commenced, 
ever  become  actually  eternal.  The  thing  implies  a  contradiction  in 
terms. 

"  The  nature  of  God  is  perfect  from  everlasting  ;  and  the  generation 
of  the  Son  of  God  was  no  voluntary  and  successive  act  of  God,  but 
something  essential  to  the  Godhead,  and  therefore  natural  and  eternal. 
We  may  illustrate  this  great  subject,  though  we  can  never  fully  com- 
prehend it.  All  natural  agents,  as  we  call  them,  act  or  operate  uniformly 
and  necessarily.  If  they  should  change  their  action  or  operation,  we 
should  immediately  infer  a  change  of  their  nature.  For  their  existence, 
in  a  certain  state,  implies  that  action  or  operation.  They  act  or  ope- 
rate by,  what  we  call,  a  necessity  of  nature,  or,  as  any  plain  uneducated 
man  would  express  himself,  it  is  their  nature  so  to  do.  Thus  the  foun- 
tain flows.  Thus  the  sun  shines.  Thus  the  mirror  reflects  whatever  is 
before  it.  No  sooner  did  the  fountain  exist,  in  its  natural  state,  than  it 
flowed.  No  sooner  did  the  sun  exist,  in  its  natural  state,  than  it  shone. 
No  sooner  did  the  mirror  exist,  in  its  natural  state,  than  it  reflected  the 
forms  placed  before  it.  These  actions  or  operations  are  all  successive, 
and  are  measured  by  time,  because  the  things  from  whence  they  result 
exist  in  time,  and  their  existence  is  necessarily  successive.  But  had  the 
fountain  existed  from  everlasting,  in  its  natural  state,  from  everlasting  it 
must  have  flowed.  Had  the  sun  so  existed,  so  it  must  have  shone. 
Had  the  mirror  so  existed,  so  it  must  have  reflected  whatever  was 
before  it.  The  Son  of  God  is  no  voluntary  effect  of  the  Father's  power 
and  wisdom,  like  the  created  universe,  which  once  did  not  exist,  and 
might  never  have  existed,  and  must,  necessarily,  be  ever  confined  within 
the  bounds  of  time  and  space :  he  is  the  natural  and  necessary,  and 
therefore  the  eternal  and  infinite  birth  of  the  Divine  fecundity,  the 
boundless  overflow  of  the  eternal  fountain  of  all  existence  and  perfec- 
tion, the  infinite  splendour  of  the  eternal  sun,  the  unspotted  mirror  and 
complete  and  adequate  image,  in  whom  may  be  seen  all  the  fulness  of 
the  Godhead.  This  places  the  orthodox  faith  at  an  equal  distance  from 
the  Sabellian  and  Arian  heresies,  and  will  ever  make  that  distance 
absolutely  infinite.  This  is  no  figure  of  speech,  but  a  most  sober  truth." 
(France's  Three  Discourses  on  the  Person  of  Christ.) 

In  the  eloquent  and  forcible  passage  just  quoted,  the  opposition  be 
tween  a  necessary  and  a  voluntary  effect  is  to  be  understood  of  arbitrary 
will ;  for,  otherwise,  the  ancients  scrupled  not  to  say,  that  the  genera- 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  561 

tion  of  the  Son  was  with  the  will  of  the  Father  ;  some,  that  he  could 
not  but  eternally  will  it,  as  being  eternally  good  ;  others,  that,  since  the 
will  of  God  is  God  himself,  as  much  as  the  wisdom  of  God  is  God  him- 
self, whatever  is  the  fruit  and  product  of  God,  is  the  fruit  and  product 
of  his  will,  wisdom,  &c  ;  and  so  the  Son,  being  the  perfect  image  of  the 
Father,  is  substance  of  substance,  wisdom  of  wisdom,  will  of  will,  as  he 
is  light  of  light,  and  God  of  God,  which  is  St.  Austin's  doctrine.  That 
the  generation  of  the  Son  may  be  by  necessity  of  nature,  without  exclud- 
ing the  concurrence  or  approbation  of  the  will,  in  the  sense  of  consent, 
approbation,  and  acquiescence,  is  shown  by  Dr.  Waterland,  in>  his 
"  Defence  of  Queries,"  and  to  that  the  reader  who  is  curious  in  such 
distinctions  is  referred.  They  are  distinctions,  however,  the  subtlety  of 
which  will  often  be  differently  apprehended  by  different  minds,  and  they 
are,  therefore,  scarcely  allowable,  except  when  used  defensively,  and  to 
silence  an  opposer  who  resorts  to  subtleties  for  the  propagation  of  error. 
The  sure  rock  is  the  testimony  of  God,  which  admits  of  no  other  con- 
sistent interpretation  than  that  above  given.  This  being  established,  the 
incomprehensible  and  mysterious  considerations,  connected  "with  the 
doctrine,  must  be  left  among  those  deep  things  of  God  which,  in  the 
present  state  at  least,  we  are  not  able  to  search  and  fathom.  For  this 
reason,  the  attempts  which  have  been  made  to  indicate,  though  faintly, 
the  manner  of  the  generation  of  the  Son  are  not  to  be  commended. 
Some  of  the  Platonizing  fathers  taught,  that  the  existence  of  the  Son 
flowed  necessarily  from  the  Divine  intellect  exerted  on  itself.  The 
schoolmen  agitated  the  question,  whether  the  Divine  generation  was 
effected  by  intellect  or  by  will.  The  Father  begetting  a  Son,  the  exact 
counterpart  and  equal  of  himself,  by  contemplating  and  exerting  his 
intelligence  upon  himself,  is  the  view  advocated  by  some  divines,  both 
of  the  Romish  and  Protestant  communions.  Analogies  have  also  been 
framed  between  the  generation  of  the  Son  by  the  Father  and  the  mind's 
generation  of  a  conception  of  itself  in  thought.  Some  of  these  specu- 
lations are  almost  obsolete  ;  others  continue  to  this  day.  It  ought,  how- 
ever, to  be  observed,  that  they  are  wholly  unconnected  with  the  fact,  as 
it  is  stated,  authoritatively  and  doctrinally  stated,  in  Scripture.  These 
are  atmospheric  halos  about  the  sun  of  revelation,  which,  in  truth,  are 
the  product  of  a  lower  region,  though  they  may  seem  to  surround  the 
orb  itself.  Of  these  notions  Zanchius  has  well  observed,  "  As  we  have 
no  proof  of  these  from  the  word  of  God,  we  must  reject  them  as  rash 
and  vain,  that  is,  if  the  thing  be  positively  asserted  so  to  be."  Indeed, 
we  may  ask,  with  the  prophet,  "  Who  shall  disclose  his  generation  ?" 
On  this  subject,  Cyril  of  Jerusalem  wisely  says,  "  Believe,  indeed,  that 
God  has  a  Son  ;  but  to  know  how  this  is  possible  be  not  curious.  For 
if  thou  searched,  thou  shalt  not  find.  Therefore,  elevate  not  thyself, 
(in  the  attempt,)  lest  thou  fall.  Be  careful  to  understand  those  things 
Vol   I.  36 


002  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

alone  which  are  delivered  to  thee  as  commands.  Fiist,  declare  to  me 
who  is  the.  Father,  and  then  thou  wilt  acknowledge  the  Son.  But  if  thou 
canst  not  ascertain  (cognoscere)  the  nature  of  the  Father,  display  no 
curiosity  about  knowing  the  mode  of  the  Son.  With  regard  to  thyself, 
it  is  sufficient  for  all  the  purposes  of  godliness  to  know,  th-'.t  God  has 
one.  only  Son" 

Proved  then,  as  I  think  it  irrefragably  is,  by  Scripture  testimony, 
that  the  title  "Son  of  God"  contains  a  revelation  of  tho  Divinity  of  our 
Lord,  as  a  person  of  the  same  nature  and  essence  with  the  Father,  we 
may  proceed  to  another  of  the  most  emphatic  and  celebrated  appellations 
of  our  blessed  Saviour — "  The  Wokd." 

Under  this  title  our  Saviour  is  abruptly  announced  in  the  introduction 
to  St.  John's  Gospel,  for  that  he  is  intended  cannot  be  a  matter  of  doubt. 
In  the  5th  verse,  "the  Word"  is  called  "  the  Light"  In  verse  7,  John 
Baptist  is  said  to  bear  witness  of  that  "  Light."  Again,  in  verse  14,  the 
Word  is  said  to  have  been  made  flesh,  and  to  have  dwelt  among  us ; 
and,  in  verse  15,  that  "  John  bears  witness  of  him."  "  The  Word"  and 
"the  Light,"  to  whom  John  bears  witness,  are  names,  therefore,  of 
the  same  Being ;  and  that  Being  is,  in  verse  17,  declared  to  be  Jesus 
Christ.  (5)  . 

The  manner  in  which  St.  John  commences  his  Gospel  is  strikingly 
different  from  the  introductions  to  the  histories  of  Christ  by  the  other 
evangelists;  and  no  less  striking  and  peculiar  is  the  title  under  which  he 
announces  him — "The  Word."  It  has,  therefore,  been  a  subject  of 
much  inquiry  and  discussion,  from  whence  this  evangelist  drew  the  use 
of  this  appellation,  and  what  reasons  led  him,  as  though  intending  to 
solicit  particular  attention,  to  place  it  at  the  very  head  of  his  Gospel. 
That  it  was  for  the  purpose  of  establishing  an  express  opinion,  as  to  the 
personal  character  of  him  whom  it  is  used  to  designate,  is  made  more 
than  probable  from  the  predominant  character  of  the  whole  Gospel, 
which  is  more  copiously  doctrinal,  and  contains  a  record  more  full  of 
what  Jesus  "  said,"  as  well  as  "  did,"  than  the  others. 

As  to  the  source  from  which  the  term  "  Logos"  was  drawn  by  the 
apostles,  some  have  held  it  to  be  taken  from  the  Jewish  Scriptures ; 
others,  from  the  Chaldee  paraphrases ;  others  from  Philo  and  the  Htl- 
lenizing  Jews.  The  most  natural  conclusion  certainly  appears  to  be, 
that,  as  St.  John  was  a  plain,  "  unlearned"  man,  chiefly  conversant  in 
the  Holy  Scriptures,  he  derived  this  term  from  the  sacred  books  of  his 
own  nation,  in  which  the  Hebrew  phrase  Dabar  Jehovah,  the  Word  of 

(5)  "  Per  tov  \oyov  intelligi  Christum,  caret  dubio,  Nam  v.  6,  7,  Scriptor  dicit, 
Joannem  Baptistam  dehoc  \oyu)  testimonium  dixisse ;  constat  autem  eum  de 
Christo  dixisse  testimonium  ;  et  v.  14,  sequiter,  \oyov  hominem  esse  factum,  et 
Apostolos  hujus  Xoyou,  hominis  facti,  vidisse  dignitatem ;  atqui  Christi  majesta- 
tem  quotidio  oculis  videbant."  (Rusenmuller.) 

■ 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  563 

Jehovah,  frequently  occurs  in  passages  which  must  be  understood  to 
speak  of  a  personal  Word,  and  which  phrase  is  rendered  Aoyoj  xupiou  by 
the  Septuagint  interpreters.  Certainly,  there  is  not  the  least  evidence 
in  his  writings,  or  in  his  traditional  history,  that  he  ever  acquainted  him- 
self  with  Philo  or  with  Plato  ;  and  none,  therefore,  that  he  borrowed  the 
term  from  them,  or  used  it  in  any  sense  approaching  to  or  suggested  by 
these  refinements  : — In  the  writings  of  St.  Paul  there  are  allusions  to 
poets  and  philosophers  ;  in  those  of  St.  John,  none.  We  have  already 
seen  that  the  Hebrew  Scriptures  contain  frequent  intimations  of  a  dis- 
tinction of  persons  in  the  Godhead  :  that  one  of  these  Divine  persons  is 
called  Jehovah  ;  and  though  manifestly  represented  as  existing  dis- 
tinct from  the  Father,  is  yet  arrayed  with  attributes  of  Divinity,  and  was 
acknowledged  by  the  ancient  Jews  to  be,  in  the  highest  sense,  "  their 
God"  the  God  with  whom,  through  all  their  history,  they  chiefly  " had 
to  do."  This  Divine  person  we  have  already  proved  to  have  been 
spoken  of  by  the  prophets  as  the  future  Christ ;  we  have  shown,  too, 
that  the  evangelists  and  apostles  represent  Jesus  as  that  Divine  nerson 
of  the  prophets  ;  and,  if  in  the  writings  of  the  Old  Testament,  he  is  also 
called  "  thk  Word,"  the  application  of  this  term  to  our  Lord  is  natu- 
rally accounted  for.  It  will  then  appear  to  be  a  theological,  not  a 
philosophic  appellation,  and  one  which,  previously  even  to  the  time  of 
the  apostle,  had  been  stamped  with  the  authority  of  inspiration.  It  is 
not,  indeed,  frequently  used  in  the  Old  Testament,  which  may  account 
for  its  not  being  adopted  as  a  prominent  title  of  Christ  by  the  other 
evangelists  and  apostles  ;  but  that,  notwithstanding  this  infrequency,  it 
is  thus  used  by  St.  John  has  a  sufficient  reason,  which  shall  be  presently 
adduced. 

In  Genesis  xv,  1,  we  are  told,  that  "  the  Wokd  of  the  Lord  came  unto 
Abram  in  a  vision,  saying,  Fear  not,  Abram  :  I  am  thy  shield  and  thy 
exceeding  great  reward."  Here  the  Word  of  the  Lord  is  the  speaker — 
"  the  Word  came — saying  :"  a  mere  word  may  be  spoken  or  said  ;  but 
a  personal  Word  only  can  say,  "  I  am  thy  shield."  The  pronoun  /re- 
fers to  the  whole  phrase,  "  the  Word  of  Jehovah ;"  and  if  a  personal 
Word  be  not  understood,  no  person  at  all  is  mentioned  by  whom  this 
message  is  conveyed,  and  whom  Abram,  in  reply,  invokes  as  "  Lord 
God."  The  same  construction  is  seen  in  Psalm  xviii,  30,  "  The  Word 
of  the  Lord  ia  tried ;  he  is  a  buckler  to  all  that  trust  in  him."  Here  the 
pronouns  refer  to  "  the  Word  of  the  Lord,"  in  the  first  clause  ;  nor  is 
there  any  thing  in  the  context  to  lead  us  to  consider  the  Word  mention- 
ed to  be  a  grammatical  word,  a  verbal  communication  of  the  will  of  an- 
other, in  opposition  to  a  personal  Word.  This  passage  is,  indeed,  less 
capable  of  being  explained,  on  the  supposition  of  an  ellipsis,  than  that  in 
Genesis.  In  this  personal  sense,  also,  1  Sam.  iii,  21,  can  only  be  natu- 
rally interpreted.     "  And  the  Lord  appeared  again  in  Shiloh ;  for  the 


564  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

Lord  revealed  (showed)  himself  to  Samuel  in  Shiloh,  by  the  Word  op 
the  Lord."  Here  it  is  first  declared,  that  the  Lord  appeared ;  then 
follows  the  manner  of  his  appearance,  or  manifestation,  "  by  the  Word 
of  the  Lord."  In  what  manner  could  he  appear,  except  by  his  personal 
Word  in  vision  1  Again,  a  comparison  of  two  passages  will  make  it 
probable,  that  the  personal  Word  is  intended  in  some  passages,  and  was 
so  understood  by  the  ancient  Jews,  where  there  are  no  marked  circum- 
stances of  construction  to  call  our  attention  to  it.  In  2  Sam.  vii,  21, 
we  find,  "  For  thy  Word's  sake,  and  according  to  thine  own  heart,  hast 
thou  done  all  these  things."  But  in  the  parallel  passage  in  1  Chron. 
xvii,  19,  it  is  read,  "  O  Lord,  for  thy  servant's  sake,  and  according  to 
thine  own  heart,  hast  thou  done  all  this  greatness."  Servant  is  unques- 
tionably an  Old  Testament  appellation  of  Messiah ;  and  not  a  few 
passages  might  be  adduced,  where  the  phrases  "  for  thy  servant's  sake," 
"  for  thy  name's  sake,"  indicate  a  mediatorial  character  vested  in  soma 
exalted  and  Divine  personage.  The  comparison  of  these  two  passages, 
however,  is  sufficient  to  show,  that  a  personal  character  is  given  to  the 
Word  mentioned  in  the  former. 

All  that  has  been  said  by  opposing  criticism,  upon  these  and  a  few 
other  passages  in  which  the  phrase  occurs,  amounts  to  no  more  than 
that  they  may  be  otherwise  interpreted,  by  considering  them  as  elliptical 
expressions.  The  sense  above  given  is,  however,  the  natural  and  ob- 
vious one ;  and  if  it  also  accounts  better  for  the  frequent  use  of  the 
terms  "  Word,"  "  Word  of  the  Lord,"  among  the  ancient  Jewish  writers, 
this  is  an  additional  reason  why  it  should  be  preferred.  The  Targum. 
ists  use  it  with  great  frequency ;  and  should  we  even  suppose  Philo 
and  the  Hellenistic  Jews  to  have  adopted  the  term  Logos  from  Plato  and 
the  Greeks,  yet  the  favouritism  of  that  term,  so  to  speak,  and  the  higher 
attributes  of  glory  and  Divinity  with  which  they  invest  their  Logos,  is 
best  accounted  for  by  the  correspondence  of  this  term  with  one  which 
they  had  found  before,  not  only  among  their  own  interpreters,  but  in  the 
sacred  writings  themselves. 

Reference  has  been  made  to  the  Targums,  and  they  are  in  farther 
evidence  of  the  theological  origin  of  this  appellation.  The  Targums, 
or  Chaldee  paraphrases  of  the  Old  Testament,  were  composed  for  the 
use  of  the  common  people  among  the  Jews,  who,  after  their  return  from 
captivity,  did  not  understand  the  original  Hebrew.  They  were  read 
in  the  synagogues  every  Sabbath  day,  and  with  the  phrases  they  con. 
tain  all  Jews  would,  of  course,  be  familiar.  Now,  in  such  of  these  para, 
phrases  as  are  extant,  so  frequently  does  the  phrase  "  the  Word  of  Jeho- 
vah" occur,  that  in  almost  every  place  where  Jehovah  is  mentioned  in 
the  Old  Testament  as  holding  any  intercourse  with  men,  this  circumlo- 
cution is  used.  "  The  Lord  created  man  in  his  own  image,"  is,  in  the 
Jerusalem  Targum,  "  The  Word  of  Jehovah  created  man."    "  Adam 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  565 

and  Eve  heard  the  voice  of  the  Lord  God,"  is  paraphrased, "  they  heard 
the  voice  of  the  Word  of  the  Lord  God."  "  The  Lord  thy  God,  he  it 
is  that  goeth  before  thee,"  is  in  the  Targum,  "Jehovah  thy  God,  his 
Word  goeth  before  thee.*"  The  Targumists  read,  for  "  I  am  thy  shield," 
Gen.  xv,  1,  "  My  Word  is  thy  shield ;"  for  "  Israel  shall  be  saved  in 
the  Lord,"  Isa.  xlv,  17,  "  by  the  Word  of  the  Lord ;"  for  "  I  am  with 
thee,"  Jer.  i,  8,  "  My  Word  is  with  thee  ;"  and  in  Psalm  ex,  1,  instead 
of  "  the  Lord  said  unto  my  Lord,"  they  read,  "  the  Lord  said  unto  his 
Word ;"  and  so  in  a  great  number  of  places. 

The  Socinian  answer  is,  that  this  is  an  idiom  of  the  Chaldee  language, 
and  that  "  the  word  of  a  person  is  merely  synonymous  to  himself."  It 
must  certainly  be  allowed  that  the  Memra  of  the  Chaldee  paraphrasts 
has  not  in  every  case  a  personal  sense,  nor,  indeed,  has  Logos,  or  Word 
by  which  it  may  be  translated  ;  but,  as  the  latter  is  capable  of  being  used 
in  a  personal  sense,  so  is  the  former ;  and,  if  passages  can  be  found  in 
the  Targums  where  it  is  evident  that  it  is  used  personally  and  as  distinct 
from  God  the  Father,  and  cannot,  without  absurdity,  be  supposed  to  be 
used  otherwise,  the  objection  is  fully  invalidated.  This  has,  I  think,  been 
very  satisfactorily  proved.  So  in  one  of  the  above  instances,  "  They 
heard  the  voice  of  the  Word  of  the  Lord  God  walking  in  the  garden." 
Here  walking  is  undoubtedly  the  attribute  of  a  person,  and  not  of  a  mere 
voice  ;  and  that  the  person  referred  to  is  not  the  Father,  appears  from 
the  author,  Tzeror  Hammor,  who  makes  this  observation  on  the  place, 
«  Before  they  sinned,  they  saw  the  glory  of  the  blessed  God  speaking 
with  him,  that  is,  with  God ;  but  after  their  sin  they  only  hea^rd  the  voice 
walking."  A  trifling  remark  ;  but  sufficient  to  show  that  the  Jewish 
expositors  considered  the  voice  as  a  distinct  person  from  God. 

The  words  of  Elijah,  1  Kings  xviii,  24,  "  J  will  call  on  the  name  of  the 
Lord,"  &c,  are  thus  paraphrased  by  Jonathan  :  "  I  will  pray  in  the  name 
of  the  Lord,  and  he  shall  send  his  Word."  The  paraphrast  could  not 
refer  to  any  message  from  God  ;  for  it  was  not  an  answer  by  word,  but 
by  fire,  that  Elijah  expected.  It  has  never  been  pretended,  either  by 
Socinians,  or  by  the  orthodox,  that  God  the  Father  is  said  to  be  sent. 
If  there  be  but  one  Divine  person,  by  whom  is  he  sent  ? 

We  learn  from  Gen.  xvi,  7,  &c,  that  "  the  Angel  of  the  Lord  found 
Hagar  by  a  fountain  of  water  ;"  that  he  said,  "  I  will  multiply  thy  seed 
exceedingly"  and  that  "  she  called  the  name  of  Jehovah  that  spake  to 
Vr,  Thou  God  seest  me."  It  is  evident  that  Hagar  considered  the  person 
*vho  addressed  her  as  Divine.  Philo  asserts  that  it  was  the  Word  who 
appeared  to  her.  Jonathan  gives  the  same  view.  "  She  confessed 
before  the  Lord  Jehovah,  whose  Word  had  spoken  to  her."  With 
this  the  Jerusalem  Targum  agrees  :  "  She  confessed  and  prayed  to  the 
Word  of  the  Lord  who  had  appeared  to  her."  It  is  in  vain  to  say,  in  the 
Socinian  sense,  that  God  himself  is  here  meant.     For  the  paraphrasts 


566  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

must  have  known,  from  the  text,  that  the  person  spoken  of  is  called  an 
angel.     If  the  Father  be  meant,  how  is  he  called  an  angel  ? 

"  They  describe  the  Word  as  a  Mediator.  It  is  said,  Deut.  iv,  7, 
'  For  what  nation  is  there  so  great,  who  hath  God  so  nigh  unto  them  as  the 
Lord  our  God  is  in  all  things  that  we  call  upon  him  for  V  Jonathan  gives 
the  following  paraphrase  of  the  passage  :  \  God  is  near  in  the  name  of 
the  Word  of  the  Lord.'  Again,  we  find  this  paraphrase  on  Hos.  iv,  9, 
*  God  will  receive  the  prayer  of  Israel  by  his  Word,  and  have  mercy 
upon  them,  and  will  make  them  by  his  Word  like  a  beautiful  fig  tree.' 
And  on  Jer.  xxix,  14,  '  I  will  be  sought  by  you  in  my  Word,  and  I 
will  be  inquired  of  through  you  by  my  Word.'  According  to  the  Jeru- 
salem Targum  on  Gen.  xxi,  33,  Abraham  at  Beersheba  *  prayed  in  the 
name  of  the  Word  of  the  Lord,  the  God  of  the  world.'  But  it  is  incon- 
ceivable that  the  paraphrasts  did  not  here  mean  to  describe  the  Word 
as  a  Mediator ;  especially  as  we  know  that  the  ancient  Jews,  when  sup- 
plicating God,  entreated  that  he  would  'look  on  the  face  of  his  anointed.' 

"  They  speak  of  atonement  as  made  by  this  Memra.  On  Deut.  xxxii, 
43,  Jonathan  observes,  <  God  will  atone  by  his  Word  for  his  land,  and 
for  his  people,  even  a  people  saved  by  the  Word  of  the  Lord.' 

"  They  describe  the  Memra  as  a  Redeemer,  and  sometimes  as  the 
Messiah.  These  words,  Gen.  xlix,  18, '  I  have  waited  for  thy  salvation,^ 
are  thus  paraphrased  in  the  Jerusalem  Targum  :  '  Our  father  Jacob  said 
thus,  My  soul  expects  not  the  redemption  of  Gideon  the  son  of  Joash, 
which  is  a  temporary  salvation  ;  nor  the  redemption  of  Samson,  which 
is  a  transitory  salvation  ;  but  the  redemption  which  thou  didst  promise 
should  come  through  thy  Memra  to  thy  people.  This  salvation  my  soul 
waits  for.'  In  the  blessing  of  Judah  (ver.  10-12)  particular  mention  is 
made  of  the  King  Messiah.  It  is  a  striking  proof  that  by  the  Memra 
they  meant  him  who  was  to  appear  as  the  Messiah,  that  in  the  Targum 
of  Jonathan,  verse  18  is  thus  rendered  :  'Our  father  Jacob  said,  I  do 
not  expect  the  deliverance  of  Gideon  the  son  of  Joash,  which  is  a  tem- 
poral salvation  ;  nor  that  of  Samson  the  son  of  Manoah,  which  is  a  tran- 
sient salvation.  But  I  expect  the  redemption  of  the  Messiah,  the  Son 
of  David,  who  shall  come  to  gather  to  himself  the  children  of  Israel.' 
It  is  evident  that  the  one  paraphrast  has  copied  from  the  other ;  and 
as  the  one  puts  Messiah  for  Memra,  it  cannot  well  be  denied  that  they 
had  considered  both  terms  as  denoting  the  same  person. 

"  They  describe  this  Memra  as  only  begotten,  and,  in  this  character,  as 
the  Creator.  That  remarkable  verse,  Gen.  iii,  22, '  The  Lord  God  said, 
Behold,  the  man  is  become  as  one  of  us,'  is  paraphrased  in  a  very  singu- 
lar manner  :  '  The  Word  of  the  Lord  said,  Behold,  Adam  whom  J  have 
created,  is  the  only  begotten  in  the  world,  as  I  am  the  only  begotten  in 
the  highest  heavens.'  The  language  here  ascribed  to  the  Memra,  with 
what  reference  to  the  text  avails  not  in  the  present  inquiry,  is  appli- 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  567 

cable  to  a  person  only ;  and  it  will  not  be  pretended  by  our  opponents, 
that  it  can  apply  to  the  Father.  The  person  intended  was  believed 
to  be  '  the  only-begotten  Word.'  How  nearly  does  this  language  ap- 
proach to  that  of  inspiration !  •  In  the  beginning  was  the  Word.  All 
things  were  made  by  him.  We  beheld  his  glory,  the  glory  as  of  the 
only  begotten  of  the  Father,'  John  i,  1,  3. 

"  If,  therefore,  the  paraphrasts  describe  the  Memra  as  one  sent,  as  a 
Mediator,  as  one  by  whom  atonement  is  made,  as  a  Redeemer  and  the 
Messiah,  and  as  only  begotten ;  it  is  undeniable  that  they  do  not  mean 
God  the  Father.  If,  notwithstanding,  they  ascribe  personal  and  Divine 
characters  to  the  Word,  they  must  mean  a  distinct  person  in  the  Divine 
essence."  (Jamieson's  Vindication.) 

The  same  personality  and  the  same  distinction  we  find  in  the  pas- 
sage, "  God  came  to  Abimelech  ;"  in  the  Targum,  "  his  Word  came 
from  the  face  of  God  to  Abimelech."  Equally  express  is  the  personal 
distinction  in  Psalm  ex,  1,  "  Jehovah  said  unto  his  Word,  Sit  thou  at 
my  right  hand."  Here  the  Word  cannot  be  the  Jehovah  that  speaks, 
and  a  person  only  could  sit  at  his  right  hand.  This  passage,  too, 
proves  that  the  ancient  Jews  applied  the  term  Word  to  the  Messiah  ; 
for,  as  we  may  learn  from  our  Lord's  conversation  with  the  Pharisees, 
it  was  a  received  opinion  that  this  passage  was  spoken  of  the  Messiah. 

Now,  as  some  of  the  Targums  still  extant  are  older  than  the  Chris- 
tian era,  and  contain  the  interpretations  of  preceding  paraphrases 
now  lost ;  and  as  there  is  so  constant  an  agreement  among  them  in 
the  use  of  this  phrase,  we  can  be  at  no  loss  to  discover  the  source 
whence  St.  John  derived  the  appellative  Logos.  He  had  found  it  in 
the  Hebrew  Scriptures,  and  he  had  heard  it,  in  the  Chaldee  paraphrases, 
read  in  the  synagogues,  by  which  it  was  made  familiar  to  every  Jew. 
Dr.  P.  Smith,  in  his  Scripture  Testimony,  hesitates  as  to  the  personal 
sense  of  the  Memra  of  the  Chaldean  paraphrasts,  and  inclines  to  con- 
sider it  as  used  in  the  sense  of  a  reciprocal  pronoun,  denoting,  in  its 
usual  application  to  the  Divine  Being,  God  his  very  self.  On  this 
supposition  it  is,  however,  impossible  to  interpret  some  of  the  passages 
above  given.  Its  primary  import,  he  says,  "  is  that,  whatever  it  may 
be,  which  is  the  medium  of  communicating  the  mind  and  intentions 
of  one  person  to  another."  The  Jews  of  the  same  age,  or  a  little 
after,  and  Philo,  he  admits,  used  the  term  Word  with  a  personal  refer- 
ence, for  such  "  an  extension  and  reference  of  the  term  would  flow  from 
the  primary  signification,  a  medium  of  rational  communication ;"  but 
if  Philo  and  those  Jews  thus  extended  the  primary  meaning  of  this 
word,  why  might  not  the  Chaldee  paraphrasts  extend  it  before  them? 
They  did  not  invent  the  term,  and  affix  to  it  its  primary  meaning. 
They  found  it  in  the  Chaldee  tongue,  as  we  find  Word  in  English  ; 
and  that  they  sometimes  use  it  in  its  primary  sense  is  no  proof  at  all 


568  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

that  they  did  not  use  it  also  in  a  personal  or  extended  one.  That  a 
second  Jehovah  is  mentioned  in  the  Hebrew  Scriptures,  as  the  medium 
of  communication  with  men,  cannot  be  denied,  and  Memra  would,  there- 
lore,  be,  according  to  this  explanation  of  its  primary  meaning,  a  most  fit 
term  to  express  his  person  and  office.  It  is  also  a  strong  evidence  in  favour 
of  the  personal  sense  of  this  term,  that  "  Maimonides  himself,  anxious  as 
he  was  to  obscure  all  those  passages  of  Scripture  that  imply  a  Divine 
plurality,  and  to  conceal  every  evidence  of  the  Jews  having  ever  held 
this  doctrine,  had  not  boldness  enough  to  assert,  that  with  the  Chaldee 
interpreters,  the  Word  of  God  was  merely '  synonymous  to  God'  himself. 
He  knew  that  the  Targums  afforded  such  unquestionable  evidence  of 
the  introduction  of  a  distinct  person  under  this  designation,  that  every 
one  of  his  countrymen,  who  was  in  the  least  acquainted  with  them, 
would  give  him  the  lie.  Therefore  he  finds  himself  reduced  to  the 
miserable  shift  of  pretending  that,  when  the  paraphrasts  speak  of  the 
Word  of  the  Lord,  and  use  this  expression  where  the  name  of  God 
occurs  in  the  original,  they  mean  to  describe  a  created  angel."  (6) 

"  Upon  the  whole,  then,"  says  Dr.  Laurence,  "  how  are  we  to  deter- 
mine the  sense  of  this  singular  phrase  1  Although  we  consider  it  neither 
as  a  reciprocal,  nor  as  intended  to  designate  the  second  person  in  the  tri- 
nity, who,  becoming  incarnate,  lived  and  died  for  us,  (of  which,  perhaps, 
the  Targumists  themselves  might  have  had,  at  best,  but  indistinct  or 
even  incorrect  ideas,)  yet  may  we,  most  probably,  regard  it,  in  its  gene- 
ral use,  as  indicative  of  a  Divine  person.  That  it  properly  means  the 
Word  of  the  Lord,  or  his  will  declared  by  a  verbal  communication,  and 
that  it  is  sometimes  literally  so  taken,  cannot  be  denied,  but  it  seems 
impossible  to  consult  the  numerous  passages,  where  personal  character- 
istics are  attributed  to  it,  and  to  conceive  that  it  does  not  usually  point  out 
a  real  person.  Whether  the  Targumist  contemplated  this  hypostatical 
word  as  a  true  subsistence  in  the  Divine  nature,  or  as  a  distinct  emana- 
tion of  Deity,  it  may  be  useless  to  inquire,  because  we  are  deficient  in 
data  adequate  to  a  complete  decision  of  the  question."  {Dissertation.) 

Philo  and  the  philosophic  Jews  may,  therefore,  be  well  spared  in  the  in- 
quiry as  to  the  source  from  whence  St.  John  derives  the  appellative  Logos. 
Whether  the  Logos  of  Philo  be  a  personified  attribute  or  a  person  has 
been  much  disputed,  but  is  of  little  consequence  on  this  point.  It  may, 
however,  be  observed,  that  as  the  evidence  predominates  in  favour  of  the 
personality,  of  the  Logos  of  Philo,  in  numerous  passages  of  his  writings, 
this  will  also  show,  that  not  only  the  Jewish  writers,  who  composed  the 
paraphrases,  and  the  common  people  among  the  Jews,  in  consequence  of 
the  Targums  being  read  in  the  synagogues,  but  also  those  learned  men 

(6)  Et  fuit  Verbum  Domini  ad  me,  &c.  Fieri  quoque  potest  meo  judicio  ut 
Onkelos  per  vocem  Elohim,  Angelum  intellexerit,  &c.  {More  Nevochim,  par.  i, 
c.  27,  p.  33.) 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES.  5G9 

who  addicted  themselves  to  the  study  of  the  Greek  philosophy,  were 
familiar  with  the  idea  of  a  Logos  as  a  person  distinct  from  God,  yet  in- 
vested with  Divine  attributes  and  performing  Divine  works.  The  ques- 
tion as  to  Philo  is  not  whether  he  sometimes  speaks  of  a  personified 
Logos,  that  is,  of  an  attribute  or  conception  of  God,  arrayed  in  poetic, 
personal  properties  :  this  is  granted  ;  but  whether  he  also  speaks  of  a 
Logos,  who  is  a  real  and  a  Divine  person.  Now,  when  he  calls  this 
Logos  God,  a  second  God,  the  Son  of  God,  the  first  begotten,  the  be- 
loved Son  ;  speaks  of  him  as  superior  to  angels,  as  the  Creator  of  the 
world,  as  seeing  all  things,  as  the  Governor  and  Sustainer,  as  a  Mes- 
senger, as  the  Shepherd  of  the  flock ;  of  men  being  freed  from  their 
sins  by  him,  as  the  true  High  Priest,  as  a  Mediator,  and  in  other  similar 
and  personal  terms,  which  may  all  be  verified  by  consulting  his  writings, 
or  the  selections  given  in  Kidd's  Demonstration,  Allix's  Judgment,  Bry- 
ant's Philo,  Laurence's  Dissertation,  and  other  works ;  he  cannot,  by  any 
possibility  of  construction,  be  supposed  to  personify  the  mere  attribute 
of  the  reason  or  wisdom  of  God,  or  any  conception  and  operation  of  the 
Divine  intellect.  This  may  be  the  only  Logos  of  Plato  ;  for,  though  the 
Christianized  Platonists,  of  a  lower  period,  used  this  term  in  a  personal 
sense,  there  is  but  slender  evidence  to  conclude  that  Plato  used  it  as  the 
name  of  a  person  distinct  from  God.  Certain  it  is,  that  the  Logos  of 
Philo  is  arrayed  in  personal  characters  which  are  not  found  in  the 
writings  of  Plato ;  a  fact  which  will  with  great  difficulty  be  accounted  for, 
upon  the  supposition  that  the  Jewish  philosopher  borrowed  his  notions 
from  the  Greek.  Philo  says,  that  "  the  Father  has  bestowed  upon  this 
Prince  of  angels  his  most  ancient  Logos,  that  he  should  stand  as  a.  Media- 
tor, to  judge  between  the  creature  and  the  Creator.  He,  therefore, 
intercedes  with  him,  who  is  immortal,  in  behalf  of  mortals ;  and,  on  the 
other  hand,  he  acts  the  part  of  an  ambassador,  being  sent  from  the 
supreme  King  to  his  subjects.  And  this  gift  he  so  willingly  accepts,  as 
to  glory  in  it,  saying,  I  have  stood  between  God  and  you,  being  neither 
unbegotten  as  God,  nor  begotten  like  mortals,  but  one  in  the  middle, 
between  two  extremes,  acting  the  part  of  a  hostage  with  both ;  with  the 
Creator,  as  a  pledge  that  he  will  never  be  provoked  to  destroy  or  desert 
the  world,  so  as  to  suffer  it  to  run  into  confusion ;  and,  with  creatures,  to 
give  them  this  certain  hope,  that  God,  being  reconciled,  will  never  cease 
to  take  care  of  his  own  workmanship.  For  I  proclaim  peace  to  the 
creation  from  that  God  who  removes  war  and  introduces  and  preserves 
peace  for  ever."  Now,  when  he  expresses  himself  in  this  manner,  who 
can  reconcile  this  to  a  mere  personification  from  the  Greek  philosophy  ? 
or  suppose  that  Philo  obtained  from  that  ideas  so  evangelical,  that,  were 
there  not  good  evidence  that  he  was  not  acquainted  with  Christianity, we 
should  rather  conceive  of  him  as  of  "  a  scribe,"  so  far  as  this  passage 
goes,  "  well  instructed"  in  the  kingdom  of  heaven  ?  Even  Dr.  Priestley 


570  THEOLOGICAL   INSTITUTES.  [PART 

acknowledges  that  Philo  "  made  a  much  more  substantial  personifica- 
tion of  the  Logos  than  any  of  the  proper  Platonists  had  done."  (Early 
Opinions.)  Substantial,  indeed,  it  is  ;  for,  although,  in  some  passages, 
in  the  vigour  of  his  discursive  and  allegorizing  genius,  "he  enshrines 
his  Logos  behind  such  a  veil  of  fancy,  that  we  can  scarcely  discern  his 
person  in  the  sanctuary,"  yet  in  the  above,  and  many  other  passages, 
"  he  draws  aside  the  veil  and  shows  him  to  us  in  his  full  proportions." 
(Whitaker's  Origin  of  Arianism.)  For  what  conceivable  attribute  of 
Deity,  or  ideal  thing  whatever,  could  any  writer,  allegorist  as  he  might 
be,  not  insanely  raving,  call  "  Prince  of  angels,"  "  Mediator,"  "Inter- 
cessor," "  neither  unbegotten  as  God,  nor  begotten  like  mortals,"  "  an 
Ambassador"  sent  from  God  to  men,  interposing  between  an  offended 
God  to  restrain  his  anger  and  to  give  "  peace"  j;o  the  world  ?  Who 
could  speak  of  these  attributes  or  idealities  in  language  anticipatory  of 
an  incarnation,  as  "  a  man  of  God,  immortal  and  incorruptible,"  as  "  the 
man  after  the  image  of  God,"  or  ascribe  to  him  a  name  "  unspeakable 
and  incomprehensible,"  and  affirm  that  he  is  a  "  fabricator,"  or  Crea- 
tor, and  "  Divine,  who  will  lie  up  close  to  the  Father,"  exactly  where 
St.  John  places  him  "  in  the  very  bosom  of  the  Father."  For,  however 
mysteriously  Philo  speaks  in  other  passages,  he  says  nothing  to  contra- 
dict these,  and  they  must  be  taken  as  they  are.  They  express  a  real 
personality,  and  they  show,  at  the  same  time,  that  they  could  not  be  bor- 
rowed from  Plato.  It  is  not  necessary  to  enter  into  the  question,  whether 
that  philosopher  ascribed  a  real  personality  to  his  Logos  or  not.  If  he 
gives  him  a  real  and  Divine  personality,  then  the  inference  will  be,  that 
he  derived  his  notion  from  the  Jews,  or  from  ancient  patriarchal  tradition ; 
and  it  would  be  most  natural  for  Philo,  finding  a  personal  and  Divine 
Logos  in  Plato,  to  enlarge  the  scanty  conceptions  of  the  philosopher  from 
the  theology  of  his  own  country.  On  the  other  hand,  if  we  suppose  the 
Logos  of  Plato  to  be  a  mere  personification,  either  Philo  must  have  im- 
proved it  into  a  real  person,  consistent  with  his  own  religion ;  or,  some- 
times philosophizing  on  a  mere  personified  Logos,  and  sometimes  intro- 
ducing the  personal  Logos  of  his  own  nation  and  native  schools,  we  have 
the  key  to  all  those  passages  which  would  appear  inconsistent  with  each 
other,  if  interpreted  only  of  one  and  the  same  subject,  and  if  he  were  re- 
garded as  speaking  exclusively  either  of  a  personified  or  a  real  Logos. 
"  From  all  the  circumstances  it  seems  to  be  the  most  reasonable  con- 
clusion, that  the  leading  acceptation  of  the  Memra  or  Logos  among 
the  Jews  of  this  middle  age  Avas  to  designate  an  intermediate  agent ; 
that,  in  'the  sense  of  a  Mediator,  between  God  and  man,  it  became  a 
recognized  appellation  of  the  Messiah;  that  the  personal  doctrine  of  the 
Word  was  the  one  generally  received,  and  that  the  conceptual  notion 
which  Philo  interweaves  with  the  other  was  purely  his  own  invention,  the 
result  of  his  theological  philosophy."  (Dr.  Smith's  Person  of  Christ.) 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES.  571 

As  the  doctrine  of  a  personal  Logos  was  not  derived  by  Philo  from 
Platonism,  so  his  own  writings,  as  decidedly  as  the  reason  of  the  case 
itself,  will  show,  that  the  source  from  which  he  did  derive  it  was  the 
Scriptures  and  the  Chaldee  paraphrases,  or,  in  other  words,  the  esta- 
blished theology  of  his  nation.  Philo  had  not  suffered  the  doctrine  of 
the  Hebrew  Scriptures,  of  a  Jehovah  acting  in  the  name  and  under  the 
commission  of  another  Jehovah  as  well  as  his  own,  to  go  unnoticed 
The  passages  of  the  Old  Testament,  in  which  a  personal  Word,  the 
Dabar  Jehovah,  occurs,  had  not  been  overlooked,  nor  the  more  frequent 
use  of  an  equivalent  phrase  in  the  Memra  of  the  paraphrasts.  "  There 
is  a  time,"  he  observes, "  when  he  (the  holy  Logos)  inquires  of  some, 
as  of  Adam,  Where  art  thou  V  exactly  corresponding  with  the  oldest 
Targumists,  "  The  Word  of  the  Lord  called  to  Adam."  Again,  with 
reference  to  Abraham  and  Lot, — "  of  whom  (the  Logos)  it  is  said  the 
sun  came  out  upon  the  earth,  and  Lot  entered  into  Sijor,  and  the  Lord 
rained  brimstone  and  fire  upon  Sodom  and  Gomorrah.  For  the  Logos 
of  God,  when  he  comes  out  to  our  earthly  system,  assists  and  helps 
those  who  are  related  to  virtue,"  &c.  So  by  Onkelos  and  Jonathan, 
the  appearances  of  God  to  Abram  are  said  to  be  appearances  of  the 
Word,  and  twice  in  the  fifteenth  chapter  of  Genesis,  "  the  Word  of  the 
Lord"  is  said  to  come  to  Abraham.  The  Being  who  appeared  to  Hagar, 
of  whom  she  said,  "  Thou  God  seest  me,"  Philo  also  calls  the  Logos. 
The  Jehovah  who  stood  above  the  ladder  of  Jacob  and  said,  "  I  am  the 
Lord  God  of  Abraham  thy  father,"  has  the  same  appellation,  and  he 
who  spake  to  Moses  from  the  bush.  It  is  thus  that  Philo  accords  with 
the  most  ancient  of  the  interpreters  of  his  nation  in  giving  the  title 
Memra,  Logos,  or  Word,  to  the  ostensible  Deity  of  the  Jewish  dispen- 
sation, in  which,  too,  they  were  authorized  by  the  use  of  the  same  term, 
in  the  same  application,  by  the  sacred  writers  themselves.  Why,  then, 
resort  to  Plato,  when  the  source  of  the  Logos  of  Philo  is  so  plainly  in- 
dicated ?  and  why  suppose  St.  John  to  have  borrowed  from  Philo,  when 
the  Logos  was  an  established  form  of  theological  speech,  and  when  the 
sources  from  which  Philo  derived  it,  the  Scriptures  and  the  para- 
phrases, were  as  accessible  to  the  apostle  as  to  the  philosophical  Jew 
of  Alexandria  ? 

As  Philo  mingled  Platonic  speculations  with  his  discourses  on  the  real 
Logos  of  his  national  faith,  without,  however,  giving  up  personality  and 
Divinity  ;  so  the  Jews  of  his  own  age  mingled  various  crude  and  dark- 
ening comments  with  the  same  ancient  faith  drawn  from  the  Scriptures, 
and  transmitted  with  the  purer  parts  of  their  tradition.  The  paraphrases 
and  writings  of  Philo  remain,  however,  a  striking  monument  of  the  ex- 
istence  of  opinions  as  to  a  distinction  of  persons  in  the  Godhead,  and  the 
Divine  character  of  a  Mediator  and  interposing  agent  between  God  and 
man,  as  indicated  in  their  Scriptures,  and  preserved  by  their  theologians. 


572  THEOLOGICAL   INSTITUTES.  [PART 

Celebrated  as  this  title  of  the  Logos  was  in  the  Jewish  theology,  it  is 
not,  however,  the  appellation  by  which  the  Spirit  of  inspiration  has 
chosen  that  our  Saviour  should  be  principally  designated.  It  occurs 
but  a  very  few  times,  and  principally  and  emphatically  in  the  introduction 
to  St.  John's  Gospel.  A  cogent  reason  can  be  given  why  this  apostle 
adopts  it,  and  we  are  not  without  a  probable  reason  why,  in  the  New 
Testament,  the  title  Son  of  God  should  have  been  preferred,  which  is, 
likewise,  a  frequent  title  of  the  Logos  in  the  writings  also  of  Philo. 

M  Originating  from  the  spiritual  principle  of  connection,  between  the 
first  and  the  second  Being  in  the  Godhead  ;  marking  this,  by  a  spiritual 
idea  of  connection  ;  and  considering  it  to  be  as  close  and  as  necessary 
as  the  Word  is  to  the  .energetic  mind  of  God,  which  cannot  bury  its 
intellectual  energies  in  silence,  but  must  put  them  forth  in  speech ;  it 
is  too  spiritual  in  itself  to  be  addressed  to  the  faith  of  the  multitude. 
If  with  so  full  a  reference  to  our  bodily  ideas,  and  so  positive  a.  filiation 
of  the  second  Being  to  the  first,  we  have  seen  the  grossness  of  Arian 
criticism,  endeavouring  to  resolve  the  doctrine  into  the  mere  dust  of  a 
figure  ;  how  much  more  ready  would  it  have  been  to  do  so,  if  we  had 
only  such  a  spiritual  denomination  as  this  for  the  second  1  This  would 
certainly  have  been  considered  by  it  as  too  unsubstantial  for  distinct 
personality,  and  therefore  too  evanescent  for  equal  Divinity."  (  Whita~ 
ker's  Origin  of  Arianism.) 

Of  the  reason  of  its  occasional  use  by  St.  John,  a  satisfactory  account 
may  also  be  given.  The  following  is  a  clear  abridgment  of  the  ampler 
discussions  on  this  subject  which  have  employed  many  learned  writers. 

"  Not  long  after  the  writings  of  Philo  were  published,  there  arose  the 
Gnostics,  a  sect,  or  rather  a  multitude  of  sects,  who  having  learnt  in  the 
same  Alexandrian  school  to  blend  the  principles  of  oriental  philosophy 
with  the  doctrine  of  Plato,  formed  a  system  most  repugnant  to  the  sim- 
plicity of  Christian  faith.  It  is  this  system  which  Paul  so  often  attacks 
under  the  name  of'  false  philosophy,  strife  of  words,  endless  genealogies, 
science,  falsely  so  called.'  The  foundation  of  the  Gnostic  system  was 
the  intrinsic  and  incorrigible  depravity  of  matter.  Upon  this  principle 
they  made  a  total  separation  between  the  spiritual  and  the  material 
world.  Accounting  it  impossible  to  educe  out  of  matter  any  thing 
which  was  good,  they  held  that  the  Supreme  Being,  who  presided  over 
the  innumerable  spirits  that  were  emanations  from  himself,  did  not  make 
this  earth,  but  that  a  spirit  of  an  inferior  nature,  very  far  removed  in 
character  as  well  as  in  rank  from  the  Supreme  Being,  formed  matter 
into  that  order  which  constitutes  the  world,  and  gave  life  to  the  different 
creatures  that  inhabit  the  earth.  They  held  that  this  inferior  spirit  was 
the  ruler  of  the  creatures  whom  he  had  made,  and  they  considered  men, 
whose  souls  he  imprisoned  in  earthly  tabernacles,  as  experiencing  under 
his  dominion  the  misery  which  necessarily  arose  from  their  connection 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL   INSTITUTES.  573 

with  matter,  and  as  estranged  from  the  knowledge  of  the  true  God. 
Most  of  the  later  sects  of  the  Gnostics  rejected  every  part  of  the  Jewish 
law,  because  the  books  of  Moses  gave  a  view  of  the  creation  inconsistent 
with  their  system.  But  some  of  the  earlier  sects,  consisting  of  Alexan- 
drian Jews,  incorporated  a  respect  for  the  law  with  the  principles  of 
their  system.  They  considered  the  Old  Testament  dispensation  as 
granted  by  the  Demiurgus,  the  maker  and  ruler  of  the  world,  who  was 
incapable  from  his  want  of  power,  of  delivering  those  who  received  it 
from  the  thraldom  of  matter  :  and  they  looked  for  a  more  glorious  mes- 
senger, whom  the  compassion  of  the  Supreme  Being  was  to  send  for  the 
purpose  of  emancipating  the  human  race.  Those  Gnostics  who  em- 
braced Christianity,  regarded  the  Christ  as  this  Messenger,  an  exalted 
JEon,  who,  being  in  some  manner  united  to  the  man  Jesus,  put  an  end 
to  the  dominion  of  the  Demiurgus,  and  restored  the  souls  of  men  to 
communion  with  God.  It  was  natural  for  the  Christian  Gnostics  who 
had  received  a  Jewish  education  to  follow  the  steps  of  Philo,  and  the 
general  sense  of  their  countrymen,  in  giving  the  name  Logos  to  the 
Demiurgus.  And  as  Christos  was  understood  from  the  beginning  of  our 
Lord's  ministry  to  be  the  Greek  word  equivalent  to  the  Jewish  name 
Messiah,  there  came  to  be,  in  their  system,  a  direct  opposition  between 
Christos  and  Logos.  The  Logos  was  the  maker  of  the  world  :  Christos 
was  the  JEon  sent  to  destroy  the  tyranny  of  the  Logos. 

"  One  of  the  first  teachers  of  this  system  was  Cerinthus.  We  have 
not  any  particular  account  of  all  the  branches  of  his  system  ;  and  it  is 
possible  that  we  may  ascribe  to  him  some  of  those  tenets  by  which  later 
sects  of  Gnostics  were  discriminated.  But  we  have  authority  for  saying 
that  the  general  principle  of  the  Gnostic  scheme  was  openly  taught  by 
Cerinthus  before  the  publication  of  the  Gospel  of  John.  The  authority 
is  that  of  Irenaeus,  a  bishop  who  lived  in  the  second  century,  who  in  his 
youth  had  heard  Polycarp,  the  disciple  of  the  Apostle  John,  and  who 
retained  the  discourses  of  Polycarp  in  his  memory  till  his  death.  There 
are  yet  extant  of  the  works  of  Irenreus,  five  books  which  he  wrote  against 
heresies,  one  of  the  most  authentic  and  valuable  monuments  of  theo- 
logical erudition.  In  one  place  of  that  work  he  says,  that  Cerinthus 
taught  in  Asia  that  the  world  was  not  made  by  the  supreme  God,  but 
by  a  certain  power  very  separate  and  far  removed  from  the  Sovereign 
of  the  universe,  and  ignorant  of  his  nature.  (Iren.  contra  Haer.  lib.  iii, 
cap.  xi,  1.)  In  another  place  he  says,  that  John  the  apostle  wished,  by 
his  Gospel,  to  extirpate  the  error  which  had  been  spread  among  men  by 
Cerinthus  ;  (Iren.  contra  Haer.  lib.  i,  xxvi,  1 ;)  and  Jerome,  who  lived 
in  the  fourth  century,  says  that  John  wrote  his  Gospel  at  the  desire  of  the 
bishops  of  Asia,  against  Cerinthus  and  other  heretics,  and  chiefly  against 
the  doctrines  of  the  Ebionites,  then  springing  up,  who  said,  that  Christ 
did  not  exist  before  he  was  born  of  Mary.  (Jerom.  De  Vit.  Illust.  cap.  ix.) 


574  THEOLOGICAL   INSTITUTES.  [PART 

"  From  the  laying  these  accounts  together,  it  appears  to  have  been 
the  tradition  of  the  Christian  Church,  that  John,  who  lived  to  a  great 
age,  and  who  resided  at  Ephesus,  in  proconsular  Asia,  was  moved  by 
the  growth  of  the  Gnostic  heresies,  and  by  the  solicitations  of  the  Chris- 
tian  teachers,  to  bear  his  testimony  to  the  truth  in  writing,  and  particu- 
larly to  recollect  those  discourses  and  actions  of  our  Lord,  which  might 
furnish  the  clearest  refutation  of  the  persons  who  denied  his  pre-exist- 
ence.  This  tradition  is  a  key  to  a  great  part  of  his  Gospel.  Matthew, 
Mark,  and  Luke,  had  given  a  detail  of  those  actions  of  Jesus  which  are 
the  evidences  of  his  Divine  mission ;  of  those  events  in  his  life  upon 
earth  which  are  most  interesting  to  the  human  race  ;  and  of  those 
moral  discourses  in  which  the  wisdom,  the  grace,  and  the  sanctity  of 
the  Teacher,  shine  with  united  lustre.  Their  whole  narration  implies 
that  Jesus  was  more  than  man.  But  as  it  is  distinguished  by  a  beauti. 
ful  simplicity,  which  adds  very  much  to  their  credit  as  historians,  they 
have  not,  with  the  exception  of  a  few  incidental  expressions,  formally 
stated  the  conclusion  that  Jesus  was  more  than  man,  but  have  left  the 
Christian  world  to  draw  it  for  themselves  from  the  facts  narrated,  or  to 
receive  it  by  the  teaching  and  the  writings  of  the  apostles.  John,  who 
was  preserved  by  God  to  see  this  conclusion,  which  had  been  drawn  by 
the  great,  body  of  Christians,  and  had  been  established  in  the  epistles, 
denied  by  different  heretics,  brings  forward,  in  the  form  of  a  history  of 
Jesus,  a  view  of  his  exalted  character,  and  draws  our  attention  particu- 
larly to  the  truth  of  that  which  had  been  denied.  When  you  come  to 
analyze  the  Gospel  of  John,  you  will  find  that  the  first  eighteen  verses 
contain  the  positions  laid  down  by  the  apostle,  in  order  to  meet  the  errors 
of  Cerinthus ;  that  these  positions,  which  are  merely  affirmed  in  the 
introduction,  are  proved  in  the  progress  of  the  Gospel,  by  the  testimony 
of  John  the  Baptist,  and  by  the  words  and  the  actions  of  our  Lord  ;  and 
that  after  the  proof  is  concluded  by  the  declaration  of  Thomas,  who, 
upon  being  convinced  that  Jesus  had  risen,  said  to  him,  *  My  Lord,  and 
my  God,'  John  sums  up  the  amount  of  his  Gospel  in  these  few  words  : 
*  These  are  written  that  ye  might  believe  that  Jesus  is  the  Christ,  the 
Son  of  God,'  i.  e.  that  Jesus  and  the  Christ  are  not  distinct  persons,  and 
that  Jesus  Christ  is  the  Son  of  God.  The  apostle  does  not  condescend 
to  mention  the  name  of  Cerinthus,  because  that  would  have  preserved, 
as  long  as  the  world  lasts,  the  memory  of  a  name  which  might  otherwise 
be  forgotten.  But  although  there  is  dignity  and  propriety  in  omitting 
the  mention  of  his  name,  it  was  necessary,  in  laying  down  the  positions 
that  were  to  meet  his  errors,  to  adopt  some  of  his  words,  because  the 
Christians  of  those  days  would  not  so  readily  have  applied  the  doctrine 
of  the  apostle  to  the  refutation  of  those  heresies  which  Cerinthus  was 
spreading  among  them,  if  they  had  not  found  in  the  exposition  of  that 
doctrine  some  of  the  terms  in  which  the  heresy  was  delivered  :  and  as 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  575 

the  chief  of  these  terms,  Logos,  which  Cerinthus  applied  to  an  inferior 
spirit,  was  equivalent  to  a  phrase  in  common  use  among  the  Jews, '  the 
Word  of  Jehovah,'  and  was  probably  borrowed  from  thence,  John  by 
his  use  of  Logos,  rescues  it  from  the  degraded  use  of  Cerinthus,  and 
restores  it  to  a  sense  corresponding  to  the  dignity  of  a  Jewish  phrase." 
(Hill's  Lectures.) 

The  Logos  was  no  fanciful  term,  merely  invented  by  St.  John,  pro  re 
nata,  or  even  suggested  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  as  a  suitable  title  for  a  pro- 
phet, by  whom  God  chose  to  reveal  himself  or  his  Word.  It  was  a 
term  diversely  understood  in  the  world  before  St.  John  began  his  Gos- 
pel. Is  it  possible,  therefore,  that  he  should  have  used  the  term  without 
some  express  allusion  to  these  prevailing  opinions?  Had  he  contradicted 
them  all,  it  would,  of  course,  have  been  a  plain  proof  that  they  were  all 
equally  fabulous  and  fanciful ;  but  by  adopting  the  term,  he  certainly 
meant  to  show  that  the  error  did  not  consist  in  believing  that  there  was 
a  Logos,  or  Word  of  God,  but  in  thinking  amiss  of  it.  We  might, 
indeed,  have  wondered  much  had  he  decidedly  adopted  the  Platonic  or 
Gnostic  notions,  in  preference  to  the  Jewish  ;  but  that  he  should  har- 
monize with  the  latter  is  by  no  means  surprising  ;  first,  because  he  was 
a  Jew  himself;  and  secondly,  because  Christianity  was  plainly  to  be 
shown  to  be  connected  with,  and,  as  it  were,  regularly  to  have  sprung 
out  of  Judaism.  It  is  certainly,  then,  in  the  highest  degree  consistent 
with  all  we  could  reasonably  expect,  to  find  St.  John  and  others  of  the 
sacred  writers  expressing  themselves  in  terms  not  only  familiar  to  the 
Jews  under  the  old  covenant,  but  which  might  tend,  by  a  perfect  reve- 
lation of  the  truth,  to  give  instruction  to  all  parties ;  correcting  the  errors 
of  the  Platonic  and  oriental  systems,  and  confirming,  in  the  clearest 
manner,  the  hopes  and  expectations  of  the  Jews.  {See  Nare's  Remarks 
on  tlie  Socinian  Version.) 

While  the  reasons  for  the  use  of  this  term  by  St.  John  are  obvious, 
the  argument  from  it  is  irresistible;  for,  first,  the  Logos  of  the  evangelist 
is  a  person,  not  an  attribute,  as  many  Socinians  have  said,  who  have, 
therefore,  sometimes  chosen  to  render  it  "  wisdom."  For  if  an  attribute, 
it  were  a  mere  truism  to  say  that  it  was  in  the  beginning  with  God,  for 
God  could  never  be  without  his  attributes.  The  apostle  also  declares, 
that  the  Logos  was  the  Light ;  but  that  John  Baptist  was  not  the  Light. 
Here  is  a  kind  of  parallel  supposed,  and  it  presumes,  also,  that  it  was 
possible  that  the  same  character  might  be  erroneously  ascribed  to  both. 

"  Between  person  and  person  this  may  undoubtedly  be  the  case  ;  but 
what  species  of  parallel  can  exist  between  man  and  an  attribute  ?  Nor 
will  the  difficulty  be  obviated  by  suggesting,  that  wisdom  here  means 
not  the  attribute  itself,  but  him  whom  that  attribute  inspired,  the  man 
Jesus  Christ,  because  the  name  of  our  Saviour  has  not  yet  been  men- 
tioned ;  because  that  rule  of  interpretation  must  be  inadmissible,  which 
at  one  time  would  explain  the  term  Logos  by  an  attribute,  at  another  by 


576  THEOLOGICAL   INSTITUTES.  [PART 

a  man,  as  best  suits  the  convenience  of  hypothesis ;  and  because,  if  it 
be,  in  this  instance,  conceived  to  indicate  our  Saviour,  it  must  follow, 
that  our  Saviour  created  the  world,  (which  the  Unitarians  will  by  no 
means  admit,)  for  the  Logos,  who  was  that  which  John  the  Baptist  was 
not,  the  true  Light,  is  expressly  declared  to  have  made  the  world." 
{Laurence's  Dissertation  on  the  Logos.) 

Again  :  the  Logos  was  made  flesh,  that  is,  became  man ;  but  in  what 
possible  sense  could  an  attribute  become  man  ?  The  Logos  is  "  the  only 
begotten  of  the  Father  ;"  but  it  would  be  uncouth  to  say  of  any  attribute, 
that  it  is  begotten  ;  and,  if  that  were  passed  over  it  would  follow,  from 
this  notion,  either  that  God  has  only  one  attribute,  or  that  wisdom  is  not 
his  only-begotten  attribute.  Farther,  St.  John  uses  terms  decisively 
personal,  as  that  he  is  God,  not  Divine  as  an  attribute,  but  God  person, 
ally ;  not  that  he  was  in  God,  which  would  property  have  been  said  of 
an  attribute,  but  with  God,  which  he  could  only  say  of  a  person :  that 
"  all  things  were  made  by  him ;"  that  he  was  "  in  the  world  ;"  that  "  he 
camg  to  his  own  ;"  that  he  was  "  in  the  bosom  of  the  Father  ;"  and  that 
"  he  hath  declared  the  Father."  The  absurdity  of  representing  the 
Logos  of  St.  John  as  an  attributive  seems,  at  length,  to  have  been  per- 
ceived by  the  Socinians  themselves,  and  their  New  Version  accordingly 
regards  it  as  a  personal  term. 

If  the  Logos  is  a  person,  then  is  he  Divine ;  for,  first  eternity  is  as. 
cribed  to  him,  "  in  the  beginning  was  the  Word."  The  Unitarian  com- 
ment is,  "  from  the  beginning  of  his  ministry,  or  the  commencement  of 
the  Gospel  dispensation  -"  which  makes  St.  John  use  another  trifling 
truism,  and  solemnly  tell  his  readers,  that  our  Saviour,  when  he  began 
his  ministry,  was  in  existence ! — "  in  the  beginning  of  his  ministry  the 
Word  was  /"  It  is  true  that  apxv,  the  beginning,  is  used  for  the  begin- 
ning  of  Christ's  ministry,  when  he  says  that  the  apostles  had  been  "  with 
him  from  the  beginning  ;"  and  it  may  be  used  for  the  beginning  of  any 
thing  whatever.  It  is  a  term  which  must  be  detennined  in  its  meaning 
by  the  context ;  (7)  and  the  question,  therefore,  is  how  the  connection 
here  determines  it.  Almost  immediately  it  is  added,  "  all  things  were 
made  by  him  ;"  which,  in  a  preceding  chapter,  has  been  proved  to  mean 
the  creation  of  universal  nature.  He,  then,  who  made  all  things  was 
prior  to  all  created  things ;  he  was  when  they  began  to  be,  and  before 
they  began  to  be ;  and,  if  he  existed  before  all  created  things,  he  was 
not  himself  created,  and  was,  therefore,  eternal.  (8)     Secondly,  he  is 

(7)  « '  Quotiescunque  fit  principii  mentio,  significationem  illius  ad  id  de  quo  ac- 
commodare  necesse  est."    (Beza.) 

(8)  **  Valde  errant,  qui  tv  apx"  interpretantur  de  initio  Evangelio ;  huic  enim 
sententisB  consilium  Joannis,  et  sequens  oratio  aperte  repugnat.  Si  vero  o  Xoyoj 
fuit  jam  turn,  quum  mundus  esse  csepit,  sequiter  eum  fuisse  ante  mundum  condi 
turn  ;  sequitur  etiam  eum  non  esse  unam  ex  ceteris  creatis  rebus,  quoB  cum  mundo 
esse  csporunt,  sed  alia  natura  conditione."  (Rosenmuller.) 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  577 

expressly  called  God,  in  the  same  sense  as  the  Father  ;  and  thirdly,  he 
is  as  explicitly  said  to  be  the  Creator  of  all  things.  The  two  last  par- 
ticulars have  already  been  largely  established,  and  nothing  need  be 
added,  except,  as  another  proof  that  the  Scriptures  can  only  be  fairly 
explained  by  the  doctrine  of  a  distinction  of  Divine  persons  in  the  God- 
head,  the  declaration  of  St.  John  may  be  adduced,  that  "  the  Word 
was  with  God,  and  the  Word  was  God."  What  hypothesis  but  this 
goes  a  single  step  to  explain  this  wonderful  language?  Arianisrn, 
which  allows  the  pre-existence  of  Christ  with  God,  accords  with  the 
first  clause,  but  contradicts  the  second.  Sabellianism,  which  reduces 
the  personal  to  an  official  and  therefore  a  temporal,  distinction,  accords 
with  the  second  clause,  but  contradicts  the  first ;  for  Christ,  accord* 
ing  to  this  theory,  was  not  with  God  in  the  beginning,  that  is,'  in  eter* 
nity.  Socinianism  contradicts  both  clauses  ;  for  on  that  scheme  Christ 
was  neither  with  God  "in  the  beginning,"  nor  was  he  God.  "The 
faith  of  God's  elect"  agrees  with  both  clauses,  and  by  both  it  ia  esta- 
blished, "  The  Word  was  with  God,  and  the  Word  was  God." 


CHAPTER  XIII. 
Christ  possessed  of  Divine  Attributes. 

Having  considered  the  import  of  some  of  the  titles  applied  to  our 
Lord  in  the  Scriptures,  and  proved  that  they  imply  Divinity,,  we  may 
next  consider  the  attributes  which  are  ascribed  to  him  in  the  New  Tes- 
tament. If,  to  names  and  lofty  titles  which  imply  Divinity,  we  find  added 
attributes  never  given  to  creatures,  and  from  which  all  creatures  are  ex- 
cluded, the  Deity  of  Christ  is  established  beyond  reasonable  controversy. 
No  argument  can  be  more  conclusive  than  this.  Of  the  essence  of 
Deity  we  know  nothing,  but  that  he  is  a  Spirit.  He  is  made  known  by 
his  attributes  ;  and  it  is  from  them  that  we  learn,  that  there  is  an  essen- 
tial distinction  between  him  and  his  creatures,  because  he  has  attributes 
which  they  have  not,  and  those  which  they  have  in  common  with  him, 
he  possesses  in  a  degree  absolutely  perfect.  From  this  it  follows,  that 
his  is  a  peculiar  nature,  a  nature  sui  generis,  to  which  no  creature  does 
or  can  possibly  approximate.  Should,  then,  these  same  attributes  be 
found  ascribed  to  Christ,  as  explicitly  and  literally  as  to  the  Father,  it 
follows  of  necessity,  that,  the  attributes  being  the  same,  the  essence  is 
the  same,  and  that  essence  the  exclusive  nature  of  the  Qeorris,  or  "  God- 
head." It  would,  indeed,  follow,  that  if  but  one  of  the  peculiar  attri- 
butes of  Deity  were  ascribed  to  Christ,  he  must  possess  the  whole,  since 
they  cannot  exist  separately ;  and  whoever  is  possessed  of  one  must  be 

Vol.  I.  37 


578  THEOLOGICAL   INSTITUTES.  [PART 

concluded  to  be  in  possession  of  all.  (9)  But  it  is  not  one  attribute 
only,  but  all  the  attributes  of  Deity  which  are  ascribed  to  him ;  and 
not  only  those  which  are  moral,  and  which  are,  therefore,  capable  of 
being  communicated,  (though  those,  as  they  are  attributed  to  Christ 
in  infinite  degree  and  in  absolute  perfection,  would  be  sufficient  for  the 
argument,)  but  those  which  are,  on  all  sides,  allowed  to  be  incommu- 
nicable, and  peculiar  to  the  Godhead. 

Eternity  is  ascribed  to  him.  "  Unto  us  a  child  is  born,  unto  us  a 
son  is  given  :  and  the  government  shall  be  upon  his  shoulder  :  and  his 
name  shall  be  called  Wonderful,  Counsellor,  the  Mighty  God,  the  Ever- 
lasting Father,  the  Prince  of  Peace."  "  Everlasting  Father"  is  vari- 
ously rendered  by  the  principal  orthodox  critics  ;  but  every  rendering  is 
in  consistency  with  the  application  of  a  positive  eternity  to  the  Messiah, 
of  which  this  is  allowed  to  be  a  prediction.  Bishop  Lowth  says,  "the 
Father  of  the  everlasting  age."  Bishop  Stock,  "the  Father  of  Eter- 
nity ;"  i.  e.  the  owner  of  it.  Dathe  and  Rosenmuller,  "JEternus" 
The  former  considers  it  an  oriental  idiom,  by  which  names  of  affinity, 
as  father,  mother,  &c,  are  used  to  denote  the  author,  or  eminent  pos- 
sessor of  a  quality  or  object.  Rev.  i,  17, 18,  "  I  am  the  First  and 
the  Last,  I  am  he  that  liveth  and  was  dead  ;"  so  also  ch.  ii,  8  ;  and  in 
both  passages  the  context  shows,  indisputably,  that  it  is  our  Lord  himself 
who  speaks,  and  applies  these  titles  to  himself.  In  chap,  xxii,  13,  also, 
Christ  is  the  speaker,  and  declares  himself  to  be  "Alpha  and  Omega, 
the  Beginning  and  the  End,  the  First  and  the  Last."  Now,  by  these 
very  titles  is  the  eternity  of  God  declared,  Isaiah  xlv,  6,  and  xliii,  10, 
"  I  am  the  first,  and  I  am  the  last :  and  beside  me  there  is  no  God." 
"  Before  me  was  there  no  God  formed,  neither  shall  there  be  after  me." 
But  they  are,  in  the  book  of  Revelation,  assumed  by  Christ  as  explicitly 
and  absolutely ;  and  they  clearly  affirm,  that  the  Being  to  whom  they 
are  applied  had  no  beginning,  and  will  have  no  end.  In  Rev.  i,  8,  after 
the  declaration,  "  I  am  Alpha  and  Omega,  the  beginning  and  the  end- 
ing, saith  the  Lord,"  it  is  added,  "  which  is,  and  which  was,  and  which 
is  to  come,  the  Almighty."  Some  have  referred  these  words  to  the 
Father  ;  but  certainly  without  reason,  as  the  very  scope  of  the  passage 
shows.  It  is  Christ  who  speaks  in  the  first  person,  throughout  the 
chapter,  when  the  sublime  titles  of  the  former  part  of  the  verse  are  used, 
and  indeed,  throughout  the  book ;  and  to  interpret  this  particular  clause 
of  the  Father  would  introduce  a  most  abrupt  change  of  persons,  which, 
but  for  a  false  theory,  would  never  have  been  imagined.  The  words, 
indeed,  do  but  express  the  import  of  the  name  Jehovah,  so  often  given 
to  Christ ;  and  as,  when  the  Father  is  spoken  of,  in  verse  4,  the  same 
declaration  is  made  concerning  him  which,  in  verse  8,  our  Lord  makea 

(9)  "  Attributa  Divina  arctissimo  copulari  vinculo,  sic,  ut  nullum  seperatim 
concipi  queat,  adeoque  qui  uno  pollot,  omnibus  ornetur."    (Doederlein.) 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  579 

of  himself,  it  follows,  that  if  the  terms  "  which  was,  and  is,  and  is  to 
come,"  are  descriptive  of  the  eternily  of  the  Father,  they  are  also  de- 
scriptive of  eternity  as  an  attribute  also  of  the  Son.    We  have  a  similar 
declaration  in  Heb.  xiii,  8,  "  Jesus  Christ,  the  same  yesterday,  to- 
day, and  foe  ever,"  where  eternity",  and  its  necessary  concomitant, 
immutability,  are  both  ascribed  to  him.    That  the  phrase,  "  yesterday, 
to-day,  and  for  ever,"  is  equivalent  to  eternity  needs  no  proof;  and  that 
the  words  are  not  spoken  of  the  doctrine  of  Christ,  as  the  Socinians  con- 
tend, appears  from  the  context,  which  scarcely  makes  any  sense  upon 
this  hypothesis,  (See  Macknight,)  since  a  doctrine  once  delivered  must 
remain  what  it  was  at  first.    This  interpretation,  also,  gives  a  figurative 
sense  to  words  which  have  all  the  character  of  a  strictly  literal  declara- 
tion ;  and  it  is  a  farther  confirmation  of  the  literal  sense,  and  that  Christ 
is  spoken  of  personally,  that  6  avrog  is  the  phrase  by  which  the  immuta- 
bility of  the  Son  is  expressed  in  chapter  i,  verse  12  :  "  But  thou  art  6 
avros,  the  same."     Peirce,  in  his  Paraphrase,  has  well  expressed  the  con- 
nection :  "  Considering  the  conclusion  of  their  life  and  behaviour,  imi- 
tate their  faith  ;  for  the  object  of  their  faith,  Jesus  Christ,  is  the  same 
now  as  he  was  then,  and  will  be  the  same  for  ever."    A  Being  essen- 
tially unchangeable,  and  therefore  eternal,  is  the  only  proper  object  of 
an  absolute  "faith."    A  similar  and  most  solemn  ascription  of  eternity 
and  immutability  occurs  Heb.  i,  10-12,  "  Thou,  Lord,  in  the  beginning 
hast  laid  the  foundation  of  the  earth  :  and  the  heavens  are  the  works  of 
thine  hands.    They  shall  perish  ;  but  thou  remainest :  and  they  all  shall 
wax  old  as  doth  a  garment ;  and  as  a  vesture  shalt  thou  fold  them  up, 
and  they  shall  be  changed ;  but  thou  art  the  same,  and  thy  years 
shall  not  fail."     These  words  are  quoted  from  Psa.  cii,  which  all 
acknowledge  to  be  a  lofty  description  of  the  eternity  of  God.    They  are 
here  applied  to  Christ,  and  of  him  they  affirm,  that  he  was  before  the 
material  universe — that  it  was  created  by  him — that  he  has  absolute 
power  over  it — that  he  shall  destroy  it — that  he  shall  do  this  with  infi- 
nite ease,  as  one  who  folds  up  a  vesture  ;  and  that,  amid  the  decays  and 
changes  of  material  things,  he  remains  the  same.     The  immutability 
here  ascribed  to  Christ  is  not,  however,  that  of  a  created  spirit,  which 
will  remain  when  the  material  universe  is  destroyed ;  for  then  there 
would  be  nothing  proper  to  Christ  in  the  text,  nothing  but  in  which  an- 
gels and  men  participate  with  him,  and  the  words  would  be  deprived  of 
all  meaning.     His  immutability  and  duration  are  peculiar,  and  a  con- 
trast is  implied  between  his  existence  and  that  of  all  created  things. 
They  are  dependent,  he  is  independent ;  and  his  necessary,  and  there- 
fore eternal,  existence  must  follow.    The  phrase  "  eternal  life,"  when 
used,  as  it  is  frequently,  in  St.  John's  Epistles,  is  also  a  clear  designa- 
tion of  the  eternity  of  our  Saviour.     "  For  the  life  was  manifested,  and 
we  have  seen  it,  and  bear  witness,  and  show  unto  you  that  eternal 


580 


THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 


life,  which  was  with  the  Father,  and  was  manifested  unto  us."  In  the 
first  clause,  Christ  is  called  the  Life ;  he  is  then  said  to  be  "  eternal ;" 
and,  that  no  mistake  should  arise,  as  though  the  apostle  merely  meant 
to  declare  that  he  would  continue  for  ever,  he  shows,  that  he  ascribes 
eternity  to  him  in  his  pre-existerit  state, — "  that  eternal  life"  which  was 
with  the  Father  ;  and  with  him  before  he  was  "  manifested  to  men." 
And  eternal  pre-existence  could  not  be  more  unequivocally  marked. 

To  these  essential  attributes  of  Deity,  to  be  without  beginning  and 
without  change,  is  added  that  of  being  extended  through  all  space. — He 
is  not  only  eternal,  but  omnipresent.  Thus  he  declares  himself  to  be 
at  the  same  time  in  heaven  and  upon  earth,  which  is  assuredly  a  pro- 
perty  of  Deity  alone.  "  No  man  hath  ascended  up  to  heaven,  but  he 
that  came  down  from  heaven,  even  the  Son  of  man  which  is  in  hea. 
ven."  The  genuineness  of  the  last  clause  has  been  attacked  by  a  few 
critics ;  but  has  been  fully  established  by  Dr.  Magee.  (Magee  on  tJi6 
Atonement.)  This  passage  has  been  defended  from  the  Socinian  inter, 
pretation  already,  and  contains  an  unequivocal  declaration  of  ubiquity. 

For  *  where  two  or  three  are  gathered  together  in  my  name,  therh 
am  I  in  the  midst  of  them."  How  futile  is  the  Socinian  comment  in 
the  New  Version  !  This  promise  is  to  be  "  limited  to  the  apostolic  age." 
But  were  that  granted,  what  would  the  concession  avail  ?  In  the  apos. 
tolic  age,  the  disciples  met  in  the  name  of  their  Lord  many  times  in 
the  week,  and  in  innumerable  parts  of  the  world  at  the  same  time,  in 
Judea,  Asia  Minor,  Europe,  &c.  He,  therefore,  who  could  be  "  in  the 
midst  of  them,"  whenever  and  wherever  they  assembled,  must  be  omni. 
present.  But  they  add,  "  by  a  spiritual  presence,  a  faculty  of  knowing 
things  in  places  where  he  was  not  present ;"  "  a  gift,"  they  say,  "  given 
to  the  apostles  occasionally,"  and  refer  to  1  Cor.  v,  3.  No  such  gift 
is,  however,  claimed  by  the  apostle  in  that  passage,  who  knew  the  affair 
in  the  Church  of  Corinth,  not  by  any  such  faculty  or  revelation,  but  by 
"  report,"  verse  1.  Nor  does  he  say,  that  he  was  present  with  them, 
but  judged  "  as  though  he  were  present."  If,  indeed,  any  such  gift  were 
occasionally  given  to  the  apostles,  it  would  be,  not  a  "  spiritual  pre- 
sence," as  the  New  Version  has  it ;  but  a  figurative  presence.  No 
such  figurative  meaning  is  however  hinted  at  in  the  text  before  us,  which 
is  as  literal  a  declaration  of  Christ's  presence  every  where  with  his  wor- 
shippers as  that  similar  promise  made  by  Jehovah  to  the  Israelites  :  "  In 
all  places  where  I  record  my  name  I  will  come  to  thee,  and  I  will  bless 
thee."  At  the  very  moment,  too,  of  his  ascension,  that  is,  just  when, 
as  to  his  bodily  presence,  he  was  leaving  his  disciples,  he  promises  still 
to  be  with  them,  and  calls  their  attention  to  this  promise  by  an  emphatic 
particle,  "  And  lo  I  am  with  you  always,  even  unto  the  end  of  the 
world,"  Matt,  xxviii,  20.  The  Socinians  render  "  to  the  end  of  the 
age,"  that  is,  "  the  Jewish  dispensation,  till  the  destruction  of  Jerusa. 


6ECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL   INSTITUTES.  581 

lem."  All  that  can  be  said  in  favour  of  this  is,  that  the  words  may  be 
so  translated,  if  no  regard  is  paid  to  their  import.  But  it  is  certain, 
that,  in  several  passages,  "  the  end  of  the  world,"  tj  cwteIuo.  r«  aiuvog, 
must  be  understood  in  its  popular  sense.  That  this  is  its  sense  here, 
appears,  first,  from  the  clause  "  Lo  I  am  with  you  always,"  naoag  rac 
ijfiepag,  "  at  all  times ;"  secondly,  because  spiritual  presence  stands,  by 
an  evidently  implied  antithesis,  opposed  to  bodily  absence  ;  thirdly, 
because  that  presence  of  Christ  was  as  necessary  to  his  disciples  after 
the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  as  till  that  period.  But  even  were  the 
promise  to  be  so  restricted,  it  would  still  be  in  proof  of  the  omnipre- 
sence of  our  Lord,  for,  if  he  were  present  with  all  his  disciples  in  all 
places,  "  always,"  to  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  it  could  only  be  by 
virtue  of  a  property  which  would  render  him  present  to  his  disciples 
in  all  ages.  The  Socinian  Version  intimates,  that  the  presence  meant 
is  the  gift  of  miraculous  powers.  Let  even  that  be  allowed,  though  it 
is  a  very  partial  view  of  the  promise  ;  then,  if  till  the  destruction  of 
Jerusalem  the  apostles  were  "  always,"  "  at  all  times,"  able  to  work 
miracles,  the  power  to  enable  them  to  effect  these  wonders  must 
"  always"  and  in  all  places  have  been  present  with  them  ;  and  if  that 
were  not  a  human  endowment,  if  a  power  superior  to  that  of  man 
were  requisite  for  the  performance  of  the  miracles,  and  that  power 
was  the  power  of  Christ,  then  he  was  really,  though  spiritually,  pre- 
sent with  them,  unless  the  attribute  of  power  can  be  separated  from 
its  subject,  and  the  power  of  Christ  be  where  he  himself  is  not.  This, 
however,  is  a  low  view  of  the  import  of  the  promise,  "  Lo  I  am  with 
you,"  which,  both  in  the  Old  and  New  Testament,  signifies  to  be  pre- 
sent with  any  one,  to  help,  comfort,  and  succour  him.  "  Eivai  fie-a  nvog, 
alicui  adesse,  juvare  aliqucm,  curare  res  alicujus."  (Rosenmuller.) 

It  is  not  necessary  to  adduce  more  than  another  passage  in  proof 
of  a  point  so  fully  determined  already  by  the  authority  of  Scripture. 
After  the  apostle,  in  Col.  i,  16,  17,  has  ascribed  the  creation  of  all 
things  in  heaven  and  earth,  "  visible  and  invisible,"  to  Christ,  he  adds, 
"  and  by  him  all  things  consist.''''  On  this  passage,  Raphelius  cites  a 
striking  passage  from  Aristotle,  De  Mundo,  where  the  same  verb,  ren- 
dered "  consist,11  by  our  translators,  is  used  in  a  like  sense  to  express 
the  constant  dependence  of  all  things  upon  their  Creator  for  continued 
subsistence  and  preservation.  "  There  is  a  certain  ancient  tradition 
common  to  all  mankind,  that  all  things  subsist  from  and  by  Cod,  and  that 
no  kind  of  being  is  self-sufficient,  when  alone,  and  destitute  of  his  pre- 
serving aid."  (1)  The  apostle  then,  here,  not  only  attributes  the  crea- 
tion, but  the  conservation  of  all  things  to  Christ ;  but  to  preserve  them 
his  presence  must  be  co-extensive  with  them,  and  thus  the  universe  of 
matter  and  created  spirits,  heaven  and  earth,  must  be  filled  with  hi» 
(1)  Raphelius  in  loc.     See  also  Parkhurst's  Lex. 


582  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PARI 

power  and  presence.  "  This  short  sentence  implies  that  our  Lord's 
presence  extends  to  every  part  of  the  creation  ;  to  every  being  and 
system  in  the  universe ;  a  most  striking  and  emphatical  description  of 
the  omnipresence  of  God  the  Son."  (Holders  Scripture  Testimonies.) 
To  these  attributes  of  essential  Divinity  is  added,  a  perfect  know- 
ledge  of  all  things.  This  cannot  be  the  attribute  of  a  creature,  for 
though  it  may  be  difficult  to  say  how  far  the  knowledge  of  the  highest 
order  of  intelligent  creatures  may  be  extended,  yet  are  there  two  kinds 
of  knowledge  which  God  has  made  peculiar  to  himself  by  solemn  and 
exclusive  claim.  The  first  is,  the  perfect  knowledge  of  the  thought? 
and  intents  of  the  heart.  "  I  the  Lord  search  the  heart,  I  try  the  reins,'5 
Jeremiah  xvii,  10.  "Thou,  even  thou  only,"  says  Solomon,  "knowest 
the  hearts  of  all  the  children  of  men,"  1  Kings  viii,  39.  This  know- 
ledge is  attributed  to  and  was  claimed  by  our  Lord,  and  that  without 
any  intimation  that  it  was  in  consequence  of  a  special  revelation,  or 
supernatural  gift,  as  in  a  few  instances  we  see  in  the  apostles  and 
prophets,  bestowed  to  answer  a  particular  and  temporary  purpose.  In 
such  instances  also,  it  is  to  be  observed,  the  knowledge  of  the  spirits 
and  thoughts  of  men  was  obtained  in  consequence  of  a  revelation  made 
to  them  by  Him  whose  prerogative  it  is  to  search  the  heart.  In  the 
case  of  our  Lord,  it  is,  however,  not  merely  said,  "  And  Jesus  knew 
their  thoughts"  that  he  perceived  in  his  spirit,  that  they  so  reasoned 
among  themselves ;  but  it  is  referred  to  as  an  attribute  or  original 
faculty,  and  it  is,  therefore  made  use  of  by  St.  John,  on  one  occasion, 
to  explain  his  conduct  with  reference  to  certain  of  his  enemies  : — 
"  But  Jesus  did  not  commit  himself  unto  them,  because  he  knew  all 
men,  and  needed  not  that  any  should  testify  of  man,  for  he  knew 
what  was  in  man."  After  his  exaltation,  also,  he  claims  the  prero 
gative  in  the  full  style  and  majesty  of  the  Jehovah  of  the  Old  Testa 
ment :  "  And  all  the  Churches  shall  know  that  I  am  he  which  search 

ETH  THE  REINS  AND  THE  HEART." 

A  striking  description  of  the  omniscience  of  Christ  is  also  found  in 
Heb.  iv,  12,  13,  if  we  understand  it,  with  most  of  the  ancients,  of  the 
hypostatic  Word  ;  to  which  sense,  I  think  the  scope  of  the  passage  and 
context  clearly  determines  it.  "  For  the  Word  of  God  is  quick  (living) 
and  powerful,  and  sharper  than  any  two-edged  sword,  piercing  even  to 
the  dividing  asunder  of  soul  and  spirit  and  of  the  joints  and  marrow,  and 

is  a  DISCERNER  OF  THE  THOUGHTS  AND  INTENTS  OF  THE  HEART  ;  neither 

is  there  any  creature  that  is  not  manifest  in  his  sight ;  for  all  things  are 
naked  and  open  to  the  eyes  of  him  with  whom  we  have  to  do."  The 
reasons  for  referring  this  passage  rather  to  Christ,  the  author  of  the  Gos- 
pel, than  to  the  Gospel  itself,  are,  first,  that  it  agrees  better  with  the  apos- 
tle's argument.  He  is  warning  Christians  against  the  example  of  ancient 
Jewish  unbelief,  and  enforces  his  warning  by  reminding  them,  that  the 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES.  583 

Word  of  God.discerns  the  thoughts  and  intents  of  the  heart.  The  argu- 
ment is  obvious,  if  the  personal  Word  is  meant ;  not  at  all  so,  if  the 
doctrine  of  the  Gospel  be  supposed.  Secondly,  the  clauses,  "  neither 
is  there  any  creature  that  is  not  manifest  in  his  sight,"  and,  all  "  things 
are  naked  and  open  to  the  eyes  of  him,  with  whom  we  have  to  do,"  or 
"  to  whom  we  must  give  an  account,"  are  undoubtedly  spoken  of  a  per- 
son, and  that  person  our  witness  and  judge.  Those,  therefore,  who 
think  that  the  Gospel  is  spoken  of  in  verse  12,  represent  the  apostle  as 
making  a  transition  from  the  Gospel  to  God  himself  in  what  follows. 
This,  however,  produces  a  violent  break  in  the  argument,  for  which  no 
grammatical  nor  contextual  reason  whatever  can  be  given ;  and  it  is 
evident  that  the  same  metaphor  extends  through  both  verses.  This  is 
taken  from  the  practice  of  dividing  and  cutting  asunder  the  bodies  of 
beasts  slain  for  sacrifice,  and  laying  them  open  for  inspection,  lest  any 
blemish  or  unsoundness  should  lurk  within,  and  render  them  unfit  for 
the  service  of  God.  The  dividing  asunder  of"  the  joints  and  marrow" 
in  the  12th  verse,  and  the  being  made  "  naked  and  open  to  the  eyes, 
in  the  13th,  are  all  parts  of  the  same  sacrificial  and  judicial  action,  to 
which,  therefore,  we  can  justly  assign  but  one  agent.  The  only  reason 
given  for  the  other  interpretation  is,  that  the  term  Logos  is  nowhere 
else  used  by  St.  Paul.  This  can  weigh  but  little  against  the  obvious 
sense  of  the  passage.  St.  Luke,  i,  2,  appears  to  use  the  term  Logos 
in  a  personal  sense,  and  he  uses  it  but  once ;  and  if  St.  Paul  uses  it 
here,  and  not  in  his  other  epistles,  this  reason  may  be  given,  that  in 
other  epistles  he  writes  to  Jews  and  Gentiles  united  in  the  same 
Churches ;  here,  to  Jews  alone,  among  whom  we  have  seen  that  the 
Logos  was  a  well  known  theological  term.  (2) 

The  Socinians  urge  against  this  ascription  of  infinite  knowledge  to 
our  Lord,  Mark  xiii,  32  :  "  But  of  that  day  and  that  hour  knoweth  no 
man,  no,  not  the  angels  which  are  in  heaven,  neither  the  Son,  but  the 
Father  only."  The  genuineness  of  the  clause  "  neither  the  Son"  has 
been  disputed,  and  is  not  inserted  by  Griesbach  in  his  text ;  there  is  not, 
however,  sufficient  reason  for  its  rejection,  though  certainly  in  the  paral- 
lel passage,  Matt,  xxiv,  36,  "  neither  the  Son"  is  not  found.  "  But  of 
that  day  and  hour  knoweth  no  man,  no,  not  the  angels  of  heaven  ;  but 
my  Father  only."  We  are  then  reduced  to  this — a  number  of  passages 
explicitly  declare  that  Christ  knows  all  things ;  there  is  one  which 
declares  that  the  Son  did  not  know  "  the  day  and  the  hour"  of  judg- 
ment ;  again,  there  is  a  passage  which  certainly  implies  that  even  this 
period  was  known  to  Christ ;  for  St.  Paul,  1  Tim.  vi,  14,  speaking  of 
the  "  appearing  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ"  as  the  universal  judge,  im- 

(2)  "  Non  deerat  peculiaris  ratio,  cur  Filium  Dei  sic  vocarct,  cum  ad  Hebraseoa 
scriberet,  qui  eum  illo  nomine  indigitare  solebant :  ut  constat  ex  Targum,  cujua 
pars  hoc  tempore  facta  est,  ct  ex  Philone  aliisque  Hellenistis."   (Poli  Synop.) 


584  THEOLOGICAL   INSTITUTES.  [PART 

mediately  adds,  "  which  in  his  own  times  natpoig  idioic,  shall  show  who 
is  the  blessed  and  only  potentate,"  &c.  The  day  of  judgment  is  here 
called  "  his  own  times,"  or  "  his  own  seasons,"  which,  in  its  obvious 
sense,  means  the  season  he  has  himself  fixed,  since  a  certain  manifesta- 
tion of  himself  is  in  its  fulness  reserved  by  him  to  that  period^  As 
"  the  times  and  the  seasons,"  also  are  said,  in  another  place,  to  be  in 
the  Father's  "  own  power  ;"  so  by  an  equivalent  phrase,  they  are  here 
said  to  be  in  the  power  of  the  Son,  because  they  are  "  his  own  times." 
Doubtless,  then,  he  knew  "  the  day  and  the  hour  of  judgment."  (3) 
Now,  certainly,  no  such  glaring  and  direct  contradiction  can  exist  in 
the  word  of  truth,  as  that  our  Lord  should  know  the  day  of  judgment, 
and,  at  the  same  time,  and  in  the  same  sense,  not  know  it.  Either, 
therefore,  the  passage  in  Mark  must  admit  of  an  interpretation  which 
will  make  it  consistent  with  other  passages  which  clearly  affirm  our 
Lord's  knowledge  of  all  things,  and  consequently  of  this  great  day,  or 
these  passages  must  submit  to  such  an  interpretation  as  will  bring  them 
into  accordance  with  that  in  Mark.  It  cannot,  however,  be  in  the 
nature  of  things  that  texts,  which  clearly  predicate  an  infinite  know- 
ledge, should  be  interpreted  to  mean  a  finite  and  partial  knowledge, 
and  this  attempt  would  only  establish  a  contradiction  between  the  text 
and  the  comment.  Their  interpretation  is  imperative  upon  us ;  but 
the  text  in  Mark  is  capable  of  an  interpretation  which  involves  no  con- 
tradiction or  absurdity  whatever,  and  which  makes  it  accord  with  the 
rest  of  the  Scripture  testimony  on  this  subject.  This  may  be  done  two 
ways.     The  first  is  adopted  by  Macknight. 

"  The  word  oidev  here  seems  to  have  the  force  of  the  Hebrew  con- 
junction, hiphil,  which  in  verbs  denoting  action,  makes  that  action, 
whatever  it  is,  pass  to  another.  Wherefore  el6eo,  which  properly  signi- 
fies, i"  know,  used  in  the  sense  of  the  conjunction  hiphil,  signifies,  1 
make  another  to  know,  I  declare.  The  word  has  this  meaning,  without 
dispute,  1  Cor.  ii,  2.  '  I  determined,  eidevat.,  to  know  nothing  among 
you,  but  Jesus  Christ  and  him  crucified ;'  i.  e.  I  determined  to  make 
known,  to  preach  nothing,  but  Jesus  Christ.  So,  likewise,  in  the  text, 
*  But  of  that  day  and  that  hour,  none  maketh  you  to  know,'  none  hath 
power  to  make  you  know  it ;  just  as  the  phrase,  Matt,  xx,  23,  '  is  not 
mine  to  give,'  signifies,  '  is  not  in  my  power  to  give  :' — «  no,  not  the 
angels,  neither  the  Son,  but  the  Father.'  Neither  man  nor  angel,  nor 
'even  the  Son  himself,  can  reveal  the  day  and  hour  of  the  destruction 
of  Jerusalem  to  you  :  because  the  Father  hath  determined  that  it  should 
^not  be  revealed."  (Harmony.) 

The  second  is  the  usual  manner  of  meeting  the  difficulty,  and  refers 
the  words  "  neither  the  Son"  exclusively  to  the  human  nature  of  our 

(3)  Kaipots  tSioii,  tempore,  quod  ipse  novit.    Erat  itaque  tempus  advontus  Christi 
ignotum  Apostolis."    (Rosenmuller.) 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  585 

Lord,  which  we  know,  as  to  the  body,  "  grew  in  stature,"  and  as  to  the 
mind,  in  "  wisdom."  Bishop  Kidder,  in  answering  the  Socinian  objec- 
tion from  the  lips  of  a  Jew,  observes, — 

"  1.  That  we  Christians  do  believe,  not  only  that  Christ  was  God  ; 
but  also  that  he  was  perfect  man,  of  a  reasonable  soul,  and  human  flesh 
subsisting. 

"  We  do  believe,  that  his  body  was  like  one  of  ours :  a  real,  not  a 
fantastic  and  imaginary  one. 

"  We  do  also  believe,  that  he  had  a  human  soul,  of  the  same  nature 
and  kind  with  one  of  ours  ;  though  it  was  free  from  sin,  and  all  original 
stain  and  corruption.  And  no  wonder  then,  that  we  read  of  him,  that 
he  increased,  not  only  in  stature,  and  in  favour  with  God  and  man,  but 
in  wisdom  also  :  Luke  ii,  52.  Now  wisdom  is  a  spiritual  endowment, 
and  belongs  to  the  mind  or  soul.  He  could  not  be  said  to  increase  in 
wisdom  as  he  was  God  ;  nor  could  this  be  said  of  him  with  respect  to 
his  body,  for  that  is  not  the  subject  of  wisdom ;  but  with  regard  to  the 
human  soul  of  Christ,  the  other  part  of  our  human  nature. 

"2.  It  must  be  granted,  that  as  man  he  did  not  know  beyond  the 
capacities  of  human  and  finite  understanding  ;  and  not  what  he  knew  as 
God.  He  could  not  be  supposed  to  know  in  this  respect  things  not 
knowable  by  man,  any  otherwise  than  as  the  Divine  nature  and  wisdom 
thought  fit  to  communicate  and  impart  such  knowledge  to  him. 

•  3.  That  therefore  Christ  may  be  said,  with  respect  to  his  human 
nature  and  finite  understanding,  not  to  know  the  precise  time,  the  day 
and  hour  of  some  future  events. 

"  4.  'Tis  farther  to  be  considered  how  the  evangelists  report  this 
matter ;  they  do  it  in  such  terms  as  are  very  observable.  Of  that  day 
and  hour  knoweth  no  man ;  it  follows,  neither  the  Son.  He  doth  not 
say  the  Son  of  God,  nor  the  loyog,  or  Word,  but  the  Son  only. 

"  I  do  not  know  all  this  while,  where  there  is  any  inconsistency  in 
the  faith  of  Christians;  [arising  from  this  view  ;]  when  we  believe  that 
Jesus  was  in  all  things  made  like  unto  us,  and  in  some  respect  a  little 
lower  than  the  angels,  Heb.  ii,  7,  17.  I  see  no  force  in  the  above- 
named  objection."  {Demonstration  of  Messiah.) 

The  "  Son  of  man,"  it  is  true,  is  here  placed  above  the  angels  ;  but, 
as  Waterland  observes, "  the  particular  concern  the  Son  of  man  has  in 
the  last  judgment  is  sufficient  to  account  for  the  supposed  climax  or 
gradation. 

"  It  is,  indeed,  objected  by  Socinians,  that  these  interpretations  of 
Mark  xiii,  32,  charge  our  Saviour,  if  not  with  direct  falsehood,  at  least 
with  criminal  evasion  ;  since  he  could  not  say  with  truth  and  sincerity, 
that  he  was  ignorant  of  the  day,  if  he  knew  it  in  any  capacity ;  as  it 
cannot  be  denied  that  man  is  immortal,  so  long  as  he  is,  in  any  respect, 
immortal.     The  answer  to  this  is,  that  as  it  may  truly  be  said  of  the 


566  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

body  of  man,  that  it  is  not  immortal,  though  the  soul  is  ;  so  it  may,  with 
equal  truth,  be  said,  that  the  Son  of  man  was  ignorant  of  some  things, 
though  the  Son  of  God  knew  every  thing.  It  is  not,  then,  inconsistent 
with  truth  and  sincerity  for  our  Lord  to  deny  that  he  knew  what  he 
really  did  know  in  one  capacity,  while  he  was  ignorant  of  it  in  an- 
other. Thus,  in  one  place  he  says,  «  Now  I  am  no  more  in  the  world,' 
John  xvii,  11 ;  and  in  another, '  Ye  have  the  poor  always  with  you,  but 
me  ye  have  not  always,'  Matt,  xxvi,  11 ;  yet  on  another  occasion,  he 
says,  *  Lo  I  am  with  you  always,'  Matt,  xxviii,  20  ;  and  again,  '  If  any 
man  love  me — my  Father  will  love  him,  and  we  will  come  unto  him, 
and  make  our  abode  with  him,'  John  xiv,  23.  From  hence  we  see  that 
our  Lord  might,  without  any  breach  of  sincerity,  deny  that  of  himself, 
considered  in  one  capacity,  which  he  could  not  have  denied  in  another. 
There  was  no  equivocation  in  his  denying  the  knowledge  of  '  that  day 
and  that  hour,'  since,  with  respect  to  his  human  nature,  it  was  most 
true ;  and  that  he  designed  it  to  refer  alone  to  his  human  nature,  is 
probable,  because  he  does  not  say  the  Son  of  God  was  ignorant  of  that 
day,  but  the  Son,  meaning  the  Son  of  man,  as  appears  from  the  con- 
text, Matthew  xxiv,  37,  39 ;  Mark  xiii,  26,  34.  Thus  Mark  xiii,  32, 
which,  at  first  sight,  may  seem  to  favour  the  Unitarian  hypothesis,  is 
capable  of  a  rational  and  unforced  interpretation,  consistently  with  the 
orthodox  faith."  (Holders  Testimonies.) 

As  the  knowledge  of  the  heart  is  attributed  to  Christ,  so  also  is  the 
knowledge  of  futurity,  which  is  another  quality  so  peculiar  to  Deity, 
that  we  find  the  true  God  distinguishing  himself  from  all  the  false  divi- 
nities of  the  heathen  by  this  circumstance  alone.  "  To  whom  will  ye 
liken  me,  and  make  me  equal,  and  compare  me,  that  we  may  be  like  ?" 
"  I  am  God,  and  there  is  none  like  me.  Declaring  the  end  from  the 
beginning,  and  from  ancient  times  the  things  that  are  not  yet  done,  saying, 
My  counsel  shall  stand,  and  I  will  do  all  my  pleasure,"  Isa.  xlvi,  5, 
9,  10.  All  the  predictions  uttered  by  our  Saviour,  and  which  are  no- 
where referred  by  him  to  inspiration,  the  source  to  which  all  the  pro- 
phets and  apostles  refer  their  prophetic  gifts,  but  were  spoken  as  from 
his  own  prescience,  are  in  proof  of  his  possessing  this  attribute.  It  is 
also  affirmed,  John  vi,  64,  that  "  Jesus  knew  from  the  beginning  who 
they  were  that  believed  not,  and  who  should  betray  him ;"  and  again, 
John  xiii,  11,  "  For  Jesus  knew  who  should  betray  him." 

Thus  we  find  the  Scriptures  ascribing  to  Jesus  an  existence  without 
beginning,  without  change,  without  limitation,  and  connected,  in  the 
whole  extent  of  space  which  it  fills,  with  the  exercise  of  the  most  per- 
fect intelligence.  These  are  essential  attributes  of  Deity.  "  Measures 
of  power  may  be  communicated  ;  degrees  of  wisdom  and  goodness  may 
be  imparted  to  created  spirits ;  but  our  conceptions  of  God  are  con- 
founded, and  we  lose  sight  of  every  circumstance  by  which  he  is  chn 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  587 

racterized,  if  such  a  manner  of  existence  as  we  have  now  described  be 
common  to  him  and  any  creature."  (Hill's  Lectures.) 

To  these  attributes  may  also  be  added  omnipotence,  which  is  also 
peculiar  to  the  Godhead  ;  for,  though  power  may  be  communicated  to  a 
creature,  yet  a  finite  capacity  must  limit  the  communication,  nor  can  it 
exist  infinitely,  any  more  than  wisdom,  except  in  an  infinite  nature. 
Christ  is,  however,  styled,  Rev.  i,  8,  "  The  Almighty."  To  the  Jews 
he  said,  'What  things  soever  he  [the  Father]  doeth,  these  also  doeth 
the  Son  likewise."  Farther,  he  declares,  that  "  as  the  Father  hath 
life  in  himself,  so  hath  he  given  to  the  Son  to  have  life  in  himself," 
which  is  a  most  strongly  marked  distinction  between  himself  and  all 
creatures  whatever.  He  has  "  life  in  himself,"  and  he  has  it  "  as  the 
Father"  has  it,  that  is,  perfectly  and  infinitely,  which  sufficiently  de- 
monstrates that  he  is  of  the  same  essence,  or  he  could  not  have  this 
communion  of  properties  with  the  Father.  The  life  is,  indeed,  said  to 
be  " given"  but  this  communication  from  the  Father  makes  no  differ- 
ence in  the  argument.  Whether  the  "life"  mean  the  same  original 
and  independent  life,  which  at  once  entitles  the  Deity  to  the  appella- 
tions "The  living  God,"  and  "The  Father  of  spirits,"  or  the 
bestowing  of  eternal  life  upon  all  believers,  it  amounts  to  the  same  thing. 
The  "  life"  which  is  thus  bestowed  upon  believers,  the  continuance  and 
perfect  blessedness  of  existence,  is  from  Christ  as  its  fountain,  and  he 
has  it  as  the  Father  himself  hath  it.  By  his  eternal  generation  it 
was  derived  from  the  Father  to  him,  and  he  possesses  it  equally  with 
the  Father ;  by  the  appointment  of  his  Father  he  is  made  the  source 
of  eternal  life  to  believers,  as  having  that  life  in  himself  to  bestow, 
and  to  supply  for  ever. 

We  may  sum  up  the  whole  Scriptural  argument,  from  Divine  attri- 
butes being  ascribed  by  the  disciples  to  our  Saviour,  and  claimed  by 
himself,  with  his  own  remarkable  declaration,  "  All  things  which  the 
Father  hath  are  mine,"  John  xvi,  15.  "  Here  he  challenges  to  himself 
the  incommunicable  attributes,  and,  consequently,  that  essence  which 
is  inseparable  from  them."  (Whitby.)  "If  God  the  Son  hath  all 
things  that  the  Father  hath,  then  hath  he  all  the  attributes  and  perfec- 
tions belonging  to  the  Father,  the  same  power,  rights,  and  privileges, 
the  same  honour  and  glory ;  and,  in  a  word,  the  same  nature,  substance, 
and  Godhead."  (Waterland.) 


588  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

CHAPTER  XIV. 

The  Acts  ascribed  to  Christ  Proofs  of  his  Divinity. 

This  argument  is  in  confirmation  of  the  foregoing ;  for,  if  not  only 
the  proper  names  of  God,  his  majestic  and  peculiar  titles,  and  his  attri- 
butes, are  attributed  to  our  Lord ;  but  if  also  acts  have  been  done  by 
him  which,  in  the  nature  of  things,  cannot  be  performed  by  any  crea- 
ture, however  exalted,  then  he  by  whom  they  were  done  must  be  truly 
God. 

The  first  act  of  this  kind  is  creation — the  creation  of  all  things.  It  is 
not  here  necessary  to  enter  into  any  argument  to  prove  that  creation,  in 
its  proper  sense,  that  is,  the  production  of  things  out  of  nothing,  is  pos- 
sible only  to  Divine  power.  The  Socinians  themselves  acknowledge 
this  ;  and,  therefore,  employ  their.perverting,  but  feeble  criticisms  in  a 
vain  attempt  to  prove,  that  the  creation,  of  which  Christ,  in  the  New 
Testament,  is  said  to  be  the  author,  is  to  be  understood  of  a  moral 
creation,  or  of  the  regulation  of  all  things  in  the  evangelic  dispensation. 
I  shall  not  adduce  many  passages  to  prove  that  a  proper  creation  is 
ascribed  to  our  Lord  ;  for  they  are  sufficiently  in  the  recollection  of  the 
reader.  It  is  enough  that  two  or  three  of  them  only  be  exhibited,  which 
cannot  be  taken,  without  manifest  absurdity,  in  any  other  sense  but  as 
attributing  the  whole  physical  creation  to  him. 

The  ascription  of  the  creation  of  "  all  things,''  in  the  physical  sense, 
to  the  Divine  Word,  in  the  introduction  to  St.  John's  Gospel,  has  been 
vindicated  against  the  Socinian  interpretation  in  a  preceding  page.  I 
shall  only  farther  remark  upon  it,  first,  that  if  St.  John  had  intended  a 
moral,  and  not  a  physical  creation,  he  could  not  have  expressed  himself 
as  he  does  without  intending  to  mislead  ;  a  supposition  equally  contrary 
to  his  inspiration  and  to  his  piety.  He  affirms  that "  all  things,"  and  that 
without  limitation  or  restriction,  "  were  made  by  him  ;"  that  "  without 
him  was  not  any  thing  made  that  was  made ;"  which  clearly  means, 
that  there  is  no  created  object  which  had  not  Christ  for  its  Creator ;  an 
assertion  which  contains  a  revelation  of  a  most  important  and  funda- 
mental  doctrine.  If,  however,  it  be  taken  in  the  Socinian  sense,  it  is  a 
pitiful  truism,  asserting  that  Christ  did  nothing  in  establishing  his  religion 
which  he  did  not  do  :  for  to  this  effect  their  Version  itself  expresses  it, — 
"  all  things  were  done  by  him,  and  without  him  was  not  any  thing  done 
that  hath  been  done  ;"  or,  as  they  might  have  rendered  it,  to  make  the 
folly  still  more  manifest,  "  without  him  was  not  any  thing  done  that  was 
done  by  him,  or  which  he  himself  did."  Unfortunately,  however,  for 
the  notion  of  arranging  or  regulating  the  new  dispensation,  the  apostle 
adds  a  full  confirmation  of  his  former  doctrine,  that  the  physical  creation 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  589 

was  the  result  of  the  power  of  the  Divine  Word,  by  asserting,  that 
"  the  world  was  made  by  him ;"  (4)  that  world  into  which  he  came 
as  "  the  light"  that  world  in  which  he  was  when  he  was  made  flesh ; 
that  world  which  "  knew  him  not."  It  matters  nothing  to  the  argument, 
whether  "  the  world"  be  understood  of  men  or  of  the  material  world ; 
on  either  supposition  it  was  made  by  him,  and  the  creation  was,  there- 
fore,  physical.  In  neither  case  could  the  creation  be  a  moral  one,  for 
the  material  world  is  incapable  of  a  moral  renewal ;  and  the  world 
which  "  knew  not"  Christ,  if  understood  of  men,  was  not  renewed,  but 
unregenerated ;  or  he  would  have  been  "  known,"  that  is,  acknowledged 
by  them. 

Another  passage,  equally  incapable  of  being  referred  to  any  but  a 
physical  creation,  is  found  in  Heb.  i,  2,  "  By  whom  also  he  made  the 
worlds."  "  God,"  says  the  apostle,  "hath  in  these  last  days  spoken 
unto  us  by  his  Son,  whom  he  hath  appointed  heir  of  all  things ;"  and 
then  he  proceeds  to  give  farther  information  of  the  nature  and  dignity 
of  the  personage  thus  denominated  "Son"  and  "heir;"  and  his  very 
first  declaration  concerning  him,  in  this  exposition  of  his  character,  in 
order  to  prove  him  greater  than  angels,  who  are  the  greatest  of  all 
created  beings,  is  that  "by  him  also  God  made  the  worlds."  Two 
methods  have  been  resorted  to,  in  order  to  ward  off  the  force  of  this 
decisive  testimony  as  to  the  Deity  of  Christ,  grounded  upon  his  creative 
acts.  The  first  is,  to  render  the  words,  "  for  whom  he  made  the 
worlds ;"  thus  referring  creation  immediately  to  the  Father,  and  making 
the  preposition  6ia,  with  a  genitive  case,  signify  the  final  cause,  the 
reason  or  end,  for  which  "  the  worlds"  were  created.  Were  this  even 
allowed,  it  would  be  a  strange  doctrine  to  assert,  that  for  a  mere  man, 
for  the  exercise  of  the  ministry  of  a  mere  man,  as  Christ  is  taken  to 
be  upon  the  Socinian  hypothesis,  "  the  worlds,"  the  whole  visible  crea- 
tion, with  its  various  orders  of  intellectual  beings,  were  created.  This 
is  a  position  almost  as  much  opposed  to  that  corrupt  hypothesis  as  is 
the  orthodox  doctrine  itself,  and  is  another  instance  in  proof  that  diffi- 
culties are  multiplied,  rather  than  lessened,  by  departing  from  the 
obvious  sense  of  Scripture.  But  no  example  is  found,  in  the  whole 
New  Testament,  of  the  use  of  dia  with  a  genitive  to  express  the  final 
cause ;  and,  in  the  very  next  verse,  St.  Paul  uses  the  same  construction 
to  express  the  efficient  cause, — "  when  he  had  by  himself  purged  our 
sins."  "This  interpretation,"  says  Whitby,  justly,  "  is  contrary  to  the 
rule  of  all  grammarians ;  contrary  to  the  exposition  of  all  the  Greek 
fathers,  and  also  without  example  in  the  New  Testament." 

The  second  resource,  therefore,  is  to  understand  "  the  worlds,"  rove 
cuu»ac,  in  the  literal  import  of  the  phrase,  for  "  the  ages,"  or  the  Gospel 

(4)  "  The  world  was  enlightened  by  him,"  says  the  New  Version  ;  which  per- 
fbctly  gratuitous  rendering  has  been  before  adverted  to. 


590  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

dispensation.  But  "  bi  aiuveg,  absolutely  put,  doth  never  signify  the 
Church,  or  evangelical  state ;  nor  doth  the  Scripture  ever  speak  of  the 
toorld  to  come  in  the  plural,  but  in  the  singular  number  only."  [Whitby.) 
The  phrase  bi  aiuveg  was  adopted  either  as  equivalent  to  the  Jewish 
division  of  the  whole  creation  into  three  parts,  this  lower  world,  the 
region  of  the  stars,  and  the  third  heaven,  the  residence  of  God  and  his 
angels  ;  or  as  expressive  of  the  duration  of  the  world,  extending  through 
an  idefinite  number  of  ages,  and  standing  opposed  to  the  short  life  of 
its  inhabitants.  A-iuv  primo  longum  tempus,  postea  eternitatem,  apud 
Scriptores  N.  T.  vero  aoaiiov  mundum  significat,  ex  Hebraismo,  ubi 
D^lj?  et  D'D^iy  de  mundo  accipitur,  quia  mundus  post  tot  generationes 
hominum  perpetuo  durat.  (Rosenmuller.)  The  apostle,  in  writing  to  the 
Hebrews,  used,  therefore,  a  mode  of  expression  which  was  not  only 
familiar  to  them ;  but  which  they  could  not  but  understand  of  the  natural 
creation.  This,  however,  is  put  out  of  all  doubt  by  the  use  of  the  same 
phrase  in  the  11th  chapter — "through  faith  we  understand  that  the 
worlds  were  framed  by  the  word  of  God,  so  that  things  which  are 
seen  were  not  made  of  things  that  do  appear  ;"  words  which  can  only 
be  understood  of  the  physical  creation.  Another  consideration,  which 
takes  the  declaration,  "  by  whom  also  he  made  the  worlds,"  out  of  the 
reach  of  all  the  captious  and  puerile  criticism  on  which  we  have 
remarked,  is,  that,  in  the  close  of  the  chapter,  the  apostle  reiterates  the 
doctrine  of  the  creation  of  the  world  by  Jesus  Christ :  "  But  unto  the 
Son  he  saith,"  not  only,  "  Thy  throne,  O  God,  is  for  ever  and  ever ;" 
but,  "  Thou,  Lord,  {Jehovah,)  in  the  beginning  hast  laid  the  foundation 
of  the  earth  ;  and  the  heavens  are  the  works  of  thine  hands  :"  words 
to  which  the  perverted  adroitness  of  heretics  has  been  able  to  affix  no 
meaning,  when  taken  in  any  other  sense  than  as  addressed  to  Christ , 
and  which  will  for  ever  attach  to  him,  on  the  authority  of  inspiration, 
the  title  of  "  Jehovah,"  and  array  him  in  all  the  majesty  of  creative 
power  and  glory.  It  is,  indeed,  a  very  conclusive  argument  in  favou* 
of  the  three  great  points  of  Christian  doctrine,  as  comprehended  in  the 
orthodox  faith,  that  it  is  impossible  to  interpret  this  celebrated  chapter, 
according  to  any  fair  rule  of  natural  and  customary  interpretation,  with- 
out admitting  that  Christ  is  God,  the  Divine  Son  of  God,  and  the 
Mediator.  The  last  is  indicated  by  his  being  the  medium  through 
whom,  in  these  last  days,  the  will  of  God  is  communicated  to  mankind, 
"  God  hath  spoken"  by  him ;  and  by  his  being  "  anointed"  priest  and 
king  "above  his  fellows."  The  second  is  expressed  both  by  his  title, 
"  the  Son,"  and  by  the  superiority  which,  in  virtue  of  that  name,  he 
has  above  angels,  and  the  worship  which,  as  the  Son,  they  are  enjoined 
to  pay  to  him.  He  is  also  called  God,  and  this  term  is  fixed  in  its 
highest  import,  by  his  being  declared  "  the  brightness  of  the  Father's 
glory,  and  the  express  image  of  his  person,"  and  by  the  creative  acts 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL   INSTITUTES.  591 

which  are  ascribed  to  him  ;  while  his  character  of  Son,  as  being  of  the 
Father,  is  still  preserved  by  the  two  metaphors  of  "  brightneis"  and 
"image"  and  by  the  expression,  "  God,  even  thy  God."  On  these  prin- 
ciples only  is  the  apostle  intelligible  j  on  any  other,  the  whole  chapter  is 
incapable  of  consistent  exposition 

The  only  additional  passage  which  it  is  necessary  to  produce,  in 
order  to  show  that  Christ  is  the  Creator  of  all  things,  and  that  the 
creation  of  which  he  is  the  author;  is  not  a  moral  but  a  physical  crea- 
tion ;  not  the  framing  of  the  Christian  dispensation,  but  the  forming  of 
the  whole  universe  of  creatures  out  of  nothing,  is  Coloss.  i,  15-17 : 
"Who  is  the  image  of  the  invisible  God,  the  first  born  of  every 
creature  :  for  by  him  were  all  things  created,  that  are  in  heaven,  and 
that  are  in  earth,  visible  and  invisible,  whether  they  be  thrones,  or  domi- 
nions, or  principalities,  or  powers ;  all  things  were  created  by  him,  and 
for  him ;  and  he  is  before  all  things,  and  by  him  all  things  consist." 
The  Sociuians  interpret  this  of  "  that  great  change  which  was  intro- 
duced into  the  moral  world,  and  particularly  into  the  relative  situation 
of  Jews  and  Gentiles,  by  the  dispensation  of  the  Gospel."  (Improved 
Version.)     But, 

1.  The  apostle  introduces  this  passage  as  a  reason  why  we  have 
"  redemption  through  his  blood ;"  ver.  14 ;  why,  in  other  words,  the 
death  of  Christ  was  efficacious,  and  obviously  attributes  this  efficacy  to 
the  dignity  of  his  nature.  This  is  the  scope  of  his  argument.  2.  He, 
therefore,  affirms  him  to  be  "  the  image"  (sixwv,)  the  exact  representa- 
tion or  resemblance  of  the  invisible  God ;  which,  when  compared  with 
Heb.  i,  2,  "  who  being  the  brighthess  of  his  glory,  and  the  express 
image  of  his  person,"  shows  that  the  apostle  uses  the  word  in  a  sense 
in  which  it  is  not  applicable  to  any  human  or  angebc  being, — "  the  first 
born  of  every  creature  ;"  or,  more  literally,  "  the  first  born  of  the  whole 
creation."  The  Arians  have  taken  this  in  the  sense  of  the  first-made 
creature ;  but  this  is  refuted  by  the  term  itself,  which  is  not  "  first 
made"  but  "  first  born ;"  and  by  the  following  verse,  which  proves  him 
to  be  first  born,  for,  or  becai'sk  (on)  "  by  him  were  all  things  created." 
Ab  to  the  date  of  his  being,  he  was  before  all  created  things,  for  they 
were  created  by  him  :  as  to  the  manner  of  his  being,  he  was  by  gene- 
ration not  creation.  The  apostle  does  not  say,  that  he  was  created  the 
first  of  all  creatures;  but,  that  he  was  born  before  them:  (Vide.  Wolf 
in  loc.) — a  plain  allusion  to  the  generation  of  the  Son  before  time  began, 
and  before  creatures  existed.  Wolf  has  also  shown,  that  among  the 
Jews  Jehovah  is  sometimes  called  the  primogenitum  mundi,  "  the  first 
born  of  the  world,"  because  they  attributed  the  creation  of  the  world  to 
the  Legos,  the  Word  of  the  Lord,  the  ostensible  Jehovah  of  the  Old 
Testament,  whom  certainly  they  never  meant  to  include  among  the 
creature:: ;  and  that  thev  called  him  also  the  Son  of  God.    It  was,  then, 


592  THEOLOGICAL   INSTITUTES.  [PART 

in  perfect  accordance  with  the  theological  language  of  the  Jews  them- 
selves, that  the  apostle  calls  our  Lord  "  the  first  born  of  the  whole 
creation." 

The  Arian  interpretation,  which  makes  the  first-made  creature  the 
Creator  of  the  rest,  is  thus  destroyed.  The  Socinian  notion  is  as  mani- 
festly absurd.  If  the  creation  here  be  the  new  dispensation,  the  Chris- 
tian Church,  then  to  call  Christ  the  first  born  of  this  creation  is  to  make 
the  apostle  say  that  Christ  was  the  first-made  member  of  the  Christian 
Church ;  and  the  reason  given  for  this  is,  that  he  made  or  constituted 
the  Church  !  If  by  this  they  mean  simply  that  he  was  the  author  of 
Christianity,  we  have  again  a  puerile  truism  put  into  the  lips  of  the 
apostle.  If  they  mean  that  the  apostle  declares  that  Christ  was  the 
first  Christian,  it  is  difficult  to  conceive  how  this  can  be  gravely  affirmed 
as  a  comment  on  the  words ;  if  any  thing  else,  it  is  impossible  to  dis- 
cover any  connection  in  the  argument,  that  is,  between  the  proposition 
that  Christ  is  the  first  born  of  the  whole  creation,  and  the  proof  of  it 
which  is  adduced,  that  by  him  were  all  things  created.  The  annotators 
on  the  New  Version  say,  "  It  is  plain  from  comparing  this  passage  with 
verse  18,  (where  Christ  is  called  the  first  born  from  the  dead,)  that 
Christ  is  called  the  first  born  of  the  whole  creation,  because  he  is  the 
first  who  was  raised  from  the  dead  to  an  immortal  life."  This  is  far 
from  being  "  plain  ;"  but  it  is  plain  that,  in  these  two  verses,  the  apostle 
speaks  of  Christ  in  two  different  states,  first,  in  his  state  "  before  all 
things,"  and  as  the  sustainer  of  all  things  ;  and,  then,  in  his  state  in 
"  the  Church"  verse  18,  in  which  is  added  to  the  former  particulars 
respecting  him, — that  "  he  is  the  head  of  the  body,  the  Church,  who  is 
the  beginning,  the  first  born  from  the  dead."  Again,  if  in  verses  15, 
16,  17,  the  apostle  is  speaking  of  what  Christ  is  in  and  to  the  Church, 
under  the  figure  of  a  creation  of  all  things  in  heaven  and  in  earth,  when 
he  drops  the  figure  and  teaches  us  that  Christ  is  the  head  of  the  Church, 
the  first  born  from  the  dead,  he  uses  a  mere  tautology  ;  nor  is  there  any 
apparent  reason  why  he  should  not,  in  the  same  plain  terms,  have  stated 
his  proposition  at  once,  without  resorting  to  expressions  which,  in  this 
view,  would  be  far-fetched  and  delusive.  In  "  the  Church"  he  was 
"  head,"  and  "  the  first  born  from  the  dead,"  the  only  one  who  ever 
rose  to  die  no  more,  and  who  gives  an  immortal  life  to  those  he  quick- 
ens ;  but  before  the  Church  existed,  or  he  himself  became  incarnate, 
"before  all  things,"  says  the  apostle,  he  was  the  "  first  born  of  the  Avhole 
creation,"  that  is,  as  the  fathers  understood  it,  he  was  born  or  begotten 
before  every  creature.  But  the  very  terms  of  the  text  are  an  abundant 
refutation  of  the  notion,  "  that  the  creation  here  mentioned  is  not  the 
creation  of  natural  substances."  The  things  created  are  said  to  be  "  all 
things  in  heaven  and  upon  the  earth  ;"  and,  lest  the  invisible  spirits  in 
the  heaven  should  be  thought  to  be  excluded,  the  apostle  adds  "  things 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL   INSTITUTES.  593 

visible  and  things  invisible ;"  and,  lest  the  invisible  things  should  be 
understood  of  inferior  angels  or  spiritual  beings,  and  the  high  and  glo- 
rious beings,  who  "  excel  in  strength,"  and  are,  in  Scripture,  invested 
with  other  elevated  properties,  should  be  suspected  to  be  exceptions,  the 
apostle  becomes  still  more  particular,  and  adds,  whether  "  thrones,  or 
dominions,  or  principalities,  or  powers,"  terms  by  which  the  Jews  ex- 
pressed the  different  orders  of  angels,  and  which  are  used  in  that  sense 
by  this  apostle,  Ephesians  i,  21.  It  is  a  shameless  criticism  of  the 
authors  of  the  New  Version,  and  shows  how  hardly  they  were  pushed 
by  this  decisive  passage,  that  "  the  apostle  does  not  here  specify  things 
themselves,  namely,  celestial  and  terrestrial  substances,  but  merely 
stales  of  things,  namely,  thrones,  dominions,  &c,  which  are  only  ranks 
and  orders  of  beings  in  the  rational  and  moral  world."  Was  it,  then, 
forgotten,  that  before  St.  Paul  speaks  of  things  in  rank  and  order,  he 
speaks  of  all  things  collectively  which  are  in  heaven  and  in  earth,  visible 
and  invisible?  If  so,  he  then,  unquestionably,  speaks  of  "things  them- 
selves" or  he  speaks  of  nothing.  Nor  is  it  true,  that,  in  the  enumera- 
tion of  thrones,  dominions,  &c,  he  speaks  of  the  creation  of  ranks  and 
orders.  He  does  not  speak  "merely  of  states  of  things,  but  of  things  in 
states  ;  he  does  not  say  that  Christ  created  thrones,  and  dominions,  and 
principalities,  and  powers,  which  would  have  been  more  to  their  pur- 
pose, but  that  he  created  all  things,  'whether'  m-e,  'they  be  thrones,-1 
&c."  The  apostle  adds,  that  all  things  were  created  by  him,  and  for 
him,  as  the  end ;  which  could  not  be  said  of  Christ,  even  if  a  moral 
creation  were  intended,  since,  on  the  Socinian  hypothesis  that  he  is  a 
mere  man,  a  prophet  of  God,  he  is  but  the  instrument  of  restoring  man 
to  obedience  and  subjection,  for  the  glory  and  in  accomplishment  of  the 
purposes  of  God.  But  how  is  the  whole  of  this  description  to  be  made 
applicable  to  a  figurative  creation,  to  the  moral  restoration  of  lapsed 
beings  1  It  is  as  plainly  historical  as  the  words  of  Moses,  "  In  the  be- 
ginning God  created  the  heavens  and  the  earth."  "  Things  visible"  and 
"  things  on  earth"  comprise,  of  course,  all  those  objects  which,  being 
neither  sensible  nor  rational,  are  incapable  of  moral  regeneration,  while 
"  things  in  heaven"  and  "  things  invisible"  comprise  the  angels  which 
never  sinned  and  who  need  no  repentance  and  no  renewal.  Such  are 
those  gross  perversions  of  the  word  of  God  which  this  heresy  induces, 
and  with  such  indelible  evidence  is  the  Divinity  cf  our  Lord  declared 
by  his  acts  of  power  and  glory,  as  the  Universal  Creator.  The 
admirable  observations  of  Bishop  Pearson  may,  properly,  conclude 
what  has  been  said  on  this  important  passage  of  inspired  writ. 

"  In  these  words  our  Saviour  is  expressly  styled  the  '  first  born  of 
every  creature,'  that  is,  begotten  by  God,  as  « the  Son  of  his  love,' 
antecedently  to  all  other  emanations,  before  any  thing  proceeded  from 
him.  or  was  framed  and  created  by  him.     And  that  precedency  is  pre 

Vol.  I.  38 


594  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  I  PART 

senlly  proved  by  this  undeniable  argument,  that  all  other  emanations  or 
productions  come  from  him,  and  whatsoever  received  its  being  by  crea- 
tion was  by  him  created,  which  assertion  is  delivered  in  the  most 
proper,  full,  and  frequent  expressions  imaginable :  First,  in  the  plain 
language  of  Moses,  as  most  consonant  to  his  description  :  '  for  by  him 
were  all  things  created  that  are  in  heaven,  and  that  are  in  earth  ;'  sig- 
nifying thereby  that  he  speaketh  of  the  same  creation.  Secondly,  by  a 
division  which  Moses  never  used,  as  describing  the  production  only  of 
corporeal  substances :  lest,  therefore,  those  immaterial  beings  might 
seem  exempted  from  the  Son's  creation,  because  omitted  in  Moses's 
description,  he  addeth  'visible  and  invisible ;'  and  lest  in  that  invisible 
world,  among  the  many  degrees  of  celestial  hierarchy,  any  order  might 
seem  exempted  from  an  essential  dependence  on  him,  he  nameth  those 
which  are  of  greatest  eminence,  '  whether  they  be  thrones,  or  dominions, 
or  principalities,  or  powers,'  and  under  them  comprehendeth  all  the 
rest.  Nor  doth  it  yet  suffice,  thus  to  extend  the  object  of  his  power,  by 
asserting  all  things  to  be  made  by  him,  except  it  be  so  understood  as  to 
acknowledge  the  sovereignty  of  his  person,  and  the  authority  of  his 
action.  For  lest  we  should  conceive  the  Son  of  God  framing  the  world 
as  a  mere  instrumental  cause  which  worketh  by  and  for  another,  he 
ehoweth  him  as  well  the  final  as  the  efficient  cause ;  for,  '  all  things 
were  created  by  him  and  for  him.'  Lastly,  whereas  all  things  first 
receive  their  being  by  creation,  and  when  they  have  received  it,  continue 
in  the  same  by  virtue  of  God's  conservation,  '  in  whom  we  live  and 
move  and  have  our  being  ;'  lest  in  any  thing  we  should  not  depend 
immediately  upon  the  Son  of  God,  he  is  described  as  the  conserver,  as 
well  as  the  Creator,  for  '  He  is  before  all  things,  and  by  him  all  things 
consist.'  If  then  we  consider  these  two  latter  verses  by  themselves, 
we  cannot  deny  but  they  are  a  most  complete  description  of  the  Crea- 
tor of  the  world  ;  and  if  they  were  spoken  of  God  the  Father,  could 
be  no  way  injurious  to  his  majesty,  who  is  nowhere  more  plainly,  or 
fully  set  forth  unto  us  as  the  Maker  of  the  world." 

But  our  Lord  himself  professes  to  do  other  acts,  beside  the  great  act 
of  creating,  which  are  peculiar  to  God ;  and  such  acts  are  also  attri- 
buted to  him  by  his  inspired  apostles.  His  preserving  of  all  things 
made  by  him  has  already  been  mentioned,  and  which  implies  not  only 
a  Divine  power,  but  also  ubiquity,  since  he  must  be  present  to  all  things, 
in  order  to  their  constant  conservation.  The  final  destruction  of  the 
whole  frame  of  material  nature  is  also  as  expressly  attributed  to  him  as 
its  creation.  "  Thou,  Lord,  in  the  beginning  hast  laid  the  foundation 
of  the  earth,  and  the  heavens  are  the  works  of  thine  hands  ;  these  shall 
perish,  but  thou  remainest,  and  as  a  vesture  shalt  thou  fold  them 
up,  and  they  shall  be  changed."  Here  omnipotent  power  is  seen 
"  changing,"  and  removing,  and  taking  away  the  vast  universe  of  mate- 


SECu.\I">.j  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  505 

rial  tilings  with  the  same  ease  as  it  was  spoken  into  being  and  at  first 
disposed  into  order.  Generally,  too,  our  Lord  claims  to  perform  the 
works  of  his  Father.  "  If  I  do  not  the  works  of  my  Father,  believe 
me  not  ;  but  if  I  do,  though  ye  believe  not  me,  believe  the  works." — 
Should  this,  even,  be  restrained  to  the  working  of  miracles,  the  argu- 
ment remains  the  same.  No  prophet,  no  apostle,  ever  used  such 
language  in  speaking  of  his  miraculous  gifts.  Here  Christ  declares 
th;:t  lie  performs  the  works  of  his  Father;  not  merely  thrt  the  Father 
worked  by  him,  but  that  he  himself  did  the  wc-ks  of  God ;  whicl,  can 
only  mean  works  proper  or  peculiar  to  God,  and  which  a  Divine 
power  only  could  effect.  (5)  So  the  Jews  understood  him,  for,  upon 
this  declaration,  "  they  sought  again  to  take  him."  That  this  power  of 
working  miracles  was  in  him  an  original  power,  appears  also  from  his 
bestowing  that  power  upon  his  disciples.  "  Behold  I  give  unto  you 
power  to  tread  on  serpents,  and  scorpions,  and  over  all  the  power  of 
the  enemy,  and  nothing  shall  by  any  means  hurt  you,"  Luke  x,  19. — 
"  And  he  gave  them  power  and  authority  over  all  devils,  and  to  cure 
diseases,"  Luke  ix,  1.  Their  miracles  were,  therefore,  to  be  performed 
in  his  name,  by  which  the  power  of  effecting  them  was  expressly 
reserved  to  him.  "  In  my  name  shall  they  cast  out  devils  ;"  "  and  his 
name  through  faith  in  ms  name  hath  made  this  man  strong." 

The  manner  in  which  our  Lord  promises  the  Holy  Spirit  is  farther 
in  proof  that  he  performs  acts  peculiar  to  the  Godhead.  He  speaks  of 
"  sending  the  Spirit"  in  the  language  of  one  who  had  an  original  right 
and  an  inherent  power  to  bestow  that  wondrous  gift  which  was  to 
impart  miraculous  energies,  and  heavenly  wisdom,  comfort,  and  purity 
to  human  minds.  Does  the  Father  send  the  Spirit  ?  He  claims  the 
same  power, — "  the  Comforter,  whom  I  will  send  unto  you."  The  Spirit 
is,  on  this  account,  called  "the  Spirit  of  Christ,"  and  "the  Spirit  of 
God."  Thus  the  giving  of  the  Spirit  is  indifferently  ascribed  to  the  Son 
and  to  the  Father  ;  but  when  that  gift  is  mediately  bestowed  by  the 
apostles,  no  such  language  is  assumed  by  them :  they  pray  to  Christ, 
and  to  the  Father  in  his  name,  and  he,  their  exalted  Master,  sheds  forth 
the  blessing — "  therefore  being  by  the  right  hand  of  God  exalted,  and 
having  received  of  the  Father  the  promise  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  he  hath 
shed  fbrth  this,  which  ye  now  see  and  hear." 

Another  of  the  unquestionably  peculiar  acts  of  God,  is  the  forgiveness 
of  sins.  In  the  manifest  reason  of  the  thing,  no  one  can  forgive  but  the 
party  offended  ;  and  as  sin  is  the  transgression  of  the  law  of  God,  he, 
alone,  is  the  offended  party,  and    he  only,    therefore,  can   forgive. — 

(5)"Si  non  facio  ea  ipsa  divina  opera,  quae  pater  meus  facit ;  si  qune  facio, 
non  halreat  divinae  virtutis  specimen."  (Rosenmuller.)  "  Opera  Patris  mei, 
v.  e.  quae  Patri,  sive  Deo,  sunt  propria :  quss  a  nemine  alio  fieri  queunt."  (Poli 
Synop.) 


596  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

Mediately,  others  may  declare  his  pardoning  acts,  or  the  conditions  on 
which  he  determines  to  forgive ;  but,  authoritatively,  there  can  be  no 
actual  forgiveness  of  sins  against  God  but  by  God  himself.  But  Christ 
forgives  sin  authoritatively,  and  he  is,  therefore,  God.  One  passage  is 
all  that  is  necessary  to  prove  this.  "  He  said  to  the  sick  of  the  palsy, 
Son,  be  of  good  cheer,  thy  sins  be  forgiven  thee."  The  scribes,  who 
were  present,  understood  that  he  did  this  authoritatively,  and  assumed, 
in  this  case,  the  rights  of  Divinity.  They  therefore  said,  among  them- 
selves, "This  man  blasphemeth."  What  then  is  the  conduct  of  our 
Lord  1  Does  he  admit  that  he  only  ministerially  declared,  in  conse- 
quence of  some  revelation,  that  God  had  forgiven  the  sins  of  the  para- 
lytic ?  On  the  contrary,  he  works  a  miracle  to  prove  to  them,  that  the 
very  right  which  they  disputed  was  vested  in  him,  that  he  had  this 
authority — "  but  that  ye  may  know  that  the  Son  of  man  hath  power 
on  earth  to  forgive  sins,  then  saith  he  to  the  sick  of  the  palsy,  Arise, 
take  up  thy  bed,  and  go  into  thine  own  house." 

Such  were  the  acts  performed  by  our  Saviour,  in  the  days  of  his 
sojourn  on  earth,  and  which  he  is  represented,  by  his  inspired  apostles, 
to  be  still  constantly  performing,  or  as  having  the  power  to  perform. — 
If  any  creature  is  capable  of  doing  the  same  mighty  works,  then 
is  all  distinction  between  created,  finite  natures,  and  the  uncreated 
Infinite  destroyed.  If  such  a  distinction,  in  fact,  exists  ;  if  neither 
creation,  preservation,  nor  salvation  be  possible  to  a  mere  creature, 
we  have  seen  that  they  are  possible  to  Christ,  because  he  actually 
creates,  preserves,  and  saves ;  and  the  inevitable  conclusion  is,  that 
he  is  very  God. 


CHAPTER  XV. 
Divine  Worship  paid  to  Christ. 

From  Christ's  own  acts  we  may  pass  to  those  of  his  disciples 
and  particularly  to  one  which  unequivocally  marks  their  opinion 
respecting  his  Divinity :  they  worship  him  as  a  Divine  person,  and 
they  enjoin  this  also  upon  Christians  to  the  end  of  time.  If  Christ, 
therefore,  is  not  God,  the  apostles  were  idolaters,  and  Christianity  is  a 
system  of  impiety.  This  is  a  point  so  important  as  to  demand  a  close 
investigation. 

The  fact  that  Divine  worship  was  paid  to  Christ  by  his  disciples 
must  be  first  established.  Instances  of  falling  down  at  the  feet  of  Jesus 
and  worshipping  him  are  so  frequent  in  the  Gospel,  that  it  is  not  neces- 
sary to  select  the  instances  which  are  so  familiar ;  and  though  we  allow 
that  the  word  irpoaKweiv  is  sometimes  used  to  express  that  lowly  reve- 
rence with  which,  in  the  east,  it  has  been  always  customary  to  salute 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  597 

persons  considered  as  greatly  superior,  and  especially  rulers  and  sove- 
reigns, it  is  yet  the  same  word  which,  in  a  great  number  of  instances, 
is  used  to  express  the  worship  of  the  supreme  God.  We  are,  then,  to 
collect  the  intention  of  the  act  of  worship,  whether  designed  as  a  token 
of  profound  civil  respect,  or  of  real  and  Divine  adoration,  from  the  cir- 
cumstances of  the  instances  on  record.  When  a  leper  comes  and  "  wok- 
ships"  Christ,  professing  to  believe  that  he  had  the  power  of  healing 
diseases,  and  that  in  himself,  which  power  he  could  exercise  at  his 
will,  all  which  he  expresses  by  saying,  "  Lord,  if  thou  wilt,  thou 
canst  make  me  clean,"  we  see  a  Jew  retaining  that  faith  of  the  Jewish 
Church  in  its  purity,  which  had  been  corrupted  among  so  many  of  his 
nation,  that  the  Messiah  was  to  be  a  Divine  person  ;  and,  viewing  our 
Lord  under  that  character,  he  regarded  his  miraculous  powers  as  ori- 
ginal and  personal,  and  so  hesitated  not  to  worship  him.  Here  then,  is 
a  case  in  which  the  circumstances  clearly  show  that  the  worship  was 
religious  and  supreme.  When  the  man  who  had  been  cured  of  blindness 
by  Jesus,  and  who  had  defended  his  prophetic  character  before  the  coun- 
cil, before  he  knew  that  he  had  a  higher  character  than  that  of  a  prophet, 
was  met  in  private  by  Jesus,  and  instructed  in  the  additional  fact,  that 
he  was  "  the  Son  of  God,"  he  worshipped  him.  u  Jesus  heard,  that 
they  had  cast  him  out,  and  when  he  had  found  him,  he  said  unto  him, 
Dost  thou  believe  on  the  Son  of  God  1  He  answered  and  said,  Who  is 
he,  Lord,  that  I  might  believe  on  him  1  And  Jesus  said  unto  him, 
Thou  hast  both  seen  him,  and  it  is  he  that  talketh  with  thee.  And  he 
said,  Lord,  I  believe,  and  he  worshipped  him  :" — worshipped  him,  be 
it  observed,  under  his  character,  "  Son  of  God,"  a  title  which,  we  have 
already  seen,  was  regarded  by  the  Jews  as  implying  actual  Divinity, 
and  which  the  man  understood  to  raise  Jesus  far  above  the  rank  of  a 
mere  prophet.  The  worship  paid  by  this  man  must,  therefore,  in  its 
intention,  have  been  supreme,  for  it  was  offered  to  an  acknowledged 
Divine  person,  the  Son  of  God.  When  the  disciples,  fully  yielding  to 
the  demonstration  of  our  Lord's 'Messiahship,  arising  out  of  a  series  of 
splendid  miracles,  recognized  him  also  under  his  personal  character, 
"  they  came  and  worshipped  him,  saying,  Of  a  truth  thou  art  the  Son 
of  God  ! "  Matt,  xiv,  33.  When  Peter,  upon  the  miraculous  draught  of 
fishes,  "  fell  at  his  feet,"  and  said,  "  Depart  from  me,  for  I  am  a  sinful 
man,  O  Lord,"  these  expressions  themselves  mark  as  strongly  the  awe 
and  apprehension  which  is  produced  in  the  breast  of  a  sinful  man,  when 
he  feels  himself  in  the  presence  of  Divinity  itself,  as  when  Isaiah 
exclaims,  in  his  vision  of  the  Divine  glory,  "  Wo  is  me,  for  I  am  undone, 
for  I  am  a  man  of  unclean  lips,  and  dwell  among  a  people  of  unclean 
lips,  for  mine  eyes  have  seen  the  King,  the  Lord  of  hosts." 

The  circumstances  then,  which  accompany  these  instances  make  it 
evident,  that  the  worship  here  paid  to  our  Lord  was  of  the  highest 


51*8  THEOLOGICAL     INSTITUTES.  [PART 

order  ;  and  they  will  serve  to  explain  several  other  cases  in  the  Gos- 
pels, similar  in  the  act,  though  not  accompanied  with  illustrative  circum- 
stances so  explicit.  But  there  is  one  general  consideration  of  import- 
ance which  applies  to  thern  all.  Such  acts  of  lowly  prostration  as  are 
called  worship  were  chiefly  p;iid  to  civil  governors.  Now  our  Lord 
cauh  wsly  avoided  giving  the  least  sanction  to  the  notion  that  he  had 
any  civil  pretensions,  and  that  his  object  was  to  make  himself  king.  It 
would,  therefore,  have  been  a  marked  inconsistency  to  suffer  himself  to 
be  saluted  with  the  homage  and  prostration  proper  to  civil  governors, 
and  which,  indeed,  was  not  always  in  Judea,  rendered  to  them.  He 
did  not  receive  this  homage,  then,  under  the  character  of  a  civil  ruler 
or  sovereign ;  and  under  what  character  could  he  receive  it  ?  Not  in 
compliance  with  the  haughty  custom  of  the  Jewish  rabbis,  who  exacted 
great  external  reverence  from  their  disciples,  for  he  sharply  reproved 
their  haughtiness  and  love  of  adulation  and  honour  :  not  as  a  simple 
teacher  of  religion,  for  his  apostles  might  then  have  imitated  his  example, 
since,  upon  the  Socinian  hypothesis  of  his  mere  manhood,  they,  when 
they  had  collected  disciples  and  founded  Churches,  had  as  clear  a  right 
to  this  distinction  as  he  himself,  had  it  only  been  one  of  appropriate  and 
common  courtesy  sanctioned  by  their  master.  But  when  do  we  read 
of  their  receiving  worship  without  spurning  it  on  the  very  ground  that 
"  they  were  men  of  like  passions"  with  others  ?  How,  then,  is  it  to  be 
accounted  for,  that  our  Lord  never  forbade  or  discouraged  this  practice 
as  to  himself,  or  even  shunned  it  ?  In  no  other  way  than  that  he  was 
conscious  of  his  natural  right  to  the  homage  thus  paid  ;  and  that  he 
accepted  it  as  the  expression  of a  faith  which,  though  sometimes  waver- 
ing, because  of  the  obscurity  which  darkened  the  minds  of  his  followers, 
and  which  even  his  own  conduct,  mysterious  as  it  necessarily  was,  till 
"  he  openly  showed  himself"  after  his  passion,  tended  to  produce,  yet 
sometimes  pierced  through  the  cloud,  and  saw  and  acknowledged?  in  the 
Word  made  flesh,  "  the  glory  as  of  the  only  begotten  of  the  Father,  full 
of  grace  and  truth." 

But  to  proceed  with  instances  of  worship  subsequent  to  our  Lord's 
lesurrection  and  ascension' :  "  He  was  parted  from  them,  and  carried  up 
into  heaven,  and  they  worshipped  him,  and  returned  to  Jerusalem  with 
great  joy,"  Luke  xxiv,  51,  52.  Here  the  act  must  necessarily  have 
been  one  of  Divine  adoration,  since  it  was  performed  after  "  he  was 
parted  from  them,"  and  cannot  be  resolved  into  the  customary  token  of 
personal  respect  paid  to  superiors.  This  was  always  done  in  the  pre- 
sence of  the  superior ;  never  by  the  Jews  in  his  absence. 

When  the  apostles  were  assembled  to  fill  up  the  place  of  Judas,  the 
lots  being  prepared,  they  pray,  "  Thou,  Lord,  who  knowest  the  hearts 
of  all  men,  show  whethei  of  these  men  thou  hast  chosen."  That  this 
prayer  is  addressed  to  C!  fist  is  clear,  from  its  being  his  special  prero- 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  599 

gative  to  choose  his  own  disciples,  who,  therefore,  styled  themselves 
"apostles,"  not  of  the  Father,  but  "of  Jesus  Christ."  Here,  then,  is  a 
direct  act  of  worship,  because  an  act  of  prayer ;  and  our  Lord  is  ad- 
dressed  as  he  who  "  knows  the  hearts  of  all  men."  Nor  is  this  more 
than  he  himself  claims  in  the  Revelation,  "  And  all  the  Churches  shall 
know  that  I  am  he  that  searcheth  the  reins  and  the  heart." 

When  Stephen,  the  protomartyr,  was  stoned,  the  writer  of  the  Acts 
of  the  Apostles  records  two  instances  of  prayer  offered  to  our  Lord  by 
this  man  "  full  of  the   Holy  Ghost,"   and  therefore,  according  to  this 
declaration,  under  plenary  inspiration.     "Lord  Jksus  !  receive  my  spi. 
rit!"  "  Lord,  lay  not  this  sin  to  their  charge  !"  In  the  former  ho 
acknowledges  Christ  to  be  the  disposer  of  the  eternal  states  of  men  :  in 
the  latter,  he  acknowledges  him  to  be  the  governor  and  judge  of  men, 
having  power  to  remit,  pass  by,  or  visit  their  sins.     All  these  are  mani- 
festly Divine  acts,  which  sufficiently  show,  that  St.  Stephen  addressed 
his  prayers  to  Christ  as  God.     The  note  from  Lindsay,  inserted  in  the 
Socinian  version,  shows  the  manner  in  which  the  Socinians  attempt  to 
evade  this  instance  of  direct  prayer  being  offered  by  the  apostles  to 
Christ.     "  This  address  of  Stephen  to  Jesus,  when  he  actually  saw  him, 
does  not  authorize  us  to  offer  prayers  to  him  now  he  is  invisible.''''    And 
this  is  seriously  alleged !     How  does  the  circumstance  of  an  object  of 
prayer  and  religious  worship  being  seen  or  unseen  alter  the  case  ?  May 
a  man,  when  seen,  be  an  object  of  prayer,  to  whom,  unseen,  it  would 
be  unlawful  to  pray  ?     The  papists,  if  this  were  true,  would  find  a  new 
refutation  of  their  practice  of  invocating  dead  saints  furnished  by  the 
Socinians.     Were  they  alive  and  seen,  prayer  to  them  would  be  lawful ; 
but  now  they  are  invisible,  it  is  idolatry !     Even  image  worship  would 
derive,  from  this  casuistry,  a  sort  of  apology,  as  the  seen  image  is,  at 
least,  the  visible  representation  of  the  invisible  saint  or  angel.     But  let 
the  case  be  put  fairly :  suppose  a  dying  person  to  pray  to  a  man,  visi- 
ble and  near  his  bed,  "  Lord,  receive  my  spirit :  Lord,  lay  not  sin  to  the 
charge  of  my  enemies,"  who  sees  not  that  this  would  be  gross  idolatry  ? 
And  yet  if  Jesus  be  a  mere  man,  the  idolatry  is  the  same,  though  that 
man  be  in  heaven.     It  will  not  alter  the  case,  for  the  Socinian  to  say 
that  the  man  Jesus  is  exalted  to  great  dignity  and  rule  in  the  invisible 
world  ;  for  he  is,  after  all,  on  their  showing,  but  a  servant ;  not  a  dis- 
penser of  the  eternal  states  of  men,  not  an  avenger  or  a  passer  by  of 
sin,  in  his  own  right,  that  he  should  lay  sin  to  the  charge  of  any  one,  or 
not  lay  it,  as  he  might  be  desired  to  do  by  a  disciple  ;  and  if  St.  Ste- 
phen had  these  views  of  him,  he  would  not,  surely,  have  asked  of  a  ser. 
rant,  what  a  servant  had  no  power  to  grant.     Indeed,  the   Socinians 
themselves  give  up  the  point,  by  denying  that  Christ  is  lawfully  the  ob- 
ject of  prayer.     There,  however,  he  is  prayed  to,  beyond  all  contro- 
versy, and  his  right  and  power  to  dispose  of  the  disembodied  spirits  of 


600  THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES.  [PART 

men  is  as  much  recognized  in  the  invocation  of  the  dying  Stephen,  as 
the  same  right  and  power  in  the  Father,  in  the  last  prayer  of  our  Lord 
himself:  "Father,  into  thy  hands  I  commend  my  spirit." 

To  Dr.  Priestley's  objection,  that  this  is  an  inconsiderable  instance, 
and  is  to  be  regarded  as  a  mere  ejaculation,  Bishop  Horsley  forcibly 
replies  :  "  St.  Stephen's  short  ejaculatory  address  you  had  not  forgot- 
ten ;  but  you  say  it  is  very  inconsiderable.  But,  sir,  why  is  it  incon- 
siderable ?  Is  it  because  it  was  only  an  ejaculation  ?  Ejaculations  are 
often  prayers  of  the  most  fervid  kind  ;  the  most  expressive  of  self  abase- 
ment and  adoration.  Is  it  for  its  brevity  that  it  is  inconsiderable  1 
What,  then,  is  the  precise  length  of  words  which  is  requisite  to  make 
a  prayer  an  act  of  worship  ?  Was  this  petition  preferred  on  an  occa- 
sion of  distress,  on  which  a  Divinity  might  be  naturally  invoked  ?  Was 
it  a  petition  for  a  succour  which  none  but  a  Divinity  could  grant  1  If 
this  was  the  case,  it  was  surely  an  act  of  worship.  Is  the  situation 
of  the  worshipper  the  circumstance  which,  in  your  judgment,  sir,  les- 
sens the  authority  of  his  example  ?  You  suppose,  perhaps,  some  con- 
sternation of  his  faculties,  arising  from  distress  and  fear.  The  history 
justifies  no  such  supposition.  It  describes  the  utterance  of  the  final 
prayer,  as  a  deliberate  act  of  one  who  knew  his  situation,  and  pos- 
sessed his  understanding.  After  praying  for  himself,  he  kneels  down 
to  pray  for  his  persecutors :  and  such  was  the  composure  with  which 
he  died,  although  the  manner  of  his  death  was  the  most  tumultuous 
and  terrifying,  that  as  if  he  had  expired  quietly  upon  his  bed,  the 
sacred  historian  says,  that  <  he  fell  asleep.'  If,  therefore,  you  would 
insinuate,  that  St.  Stephen  was  not  himself,  when  he  sent  forth  this 
•  short  ejaculatory  address  to  Christ,'  the  history  refutes  you.  If  he 
was  himself,  you  cannot  justify  his  prayer  to  Christ,  while  you  deny 
that  Christ  is  God,  upon  any  principle  that  might  not  equally  justify 
you  or  me,  in  praying  to  the  blessed  Stephen.  If  St.  Stephen,  in  the 
full  possession  of  his  faculties,  prayed  to  him  who  is  no  God,  why  do 
we  reproach  the  Romanist,  when  he  chaunts  the  litany  of  his  saints  ?" 

St.  Paul,  also,  in  that  affliction,  which  he  metaphorically  describes 
by  "  a  thorn  in  the  flesh,*  "  sought  the  Lord  thrice"  that  it  might  de-v 
part  from  him  ;  and  the  answer  shows  that  "  the  Lord,"  to  whom  he 
addressed  his  prayer,  was  Christ  ;  for  he  adds,  "  and  he  said  unto  me, 
My  grace  is  sufficient  for  thee,  for  my  strength  is  made  perfect  in 
weakness :  most  gladly,  therefore,  will  I  glory  in  my  infirmities,  that 
the  power  of  Christ  may  rest  upon  me ;"  clearly  signifying  the  power 
of  him  who  had  said,  in  answer  to  his  prayer,  "  My  strength,  dwafzic, 
power,  is  made  perfect  in  weakness." 

St.  Paul  also  prays  to  Christ,  conjointly  with  the  Father,  in  behalf  of 
the  Thessalonians.  "  Now  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  himself,  and  God, 
even  our  Father,  which  hath  loved  us,  and  hath  given  us  everlasting 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL   INSTITUTES.  601 

consolation,  and  good  hope  through  grace,  comfort  your  hearts,  and 
stablish  you  in  every  good  work"  2  Thess.  ii,  16,  17.  In  like  manner 
he  invokes  our  Lord  to  grant  his  spiritual  presence  to  Timothy :  "  The 
Lord  Jesus  be  with  thy  spirit,"  2  Tim.  iv,  22.  The  invoking  of  Christ 
is,  indeed,  adduced  by  St.  Paul  as  a  distinctive  characteristic  of  Chris- 
tians, so  that  among  all  the  primitive  Churches  this  practice  must  have 
been  universal.  "  Unto  the  Church  of  God  which  is  at  Corinth,  to  them 
that  are  sanctified  in  Christ  Jesus,  called  to  be  saints,  with  all  that  in 

EVERY  PLACE  CALL  UPON  THE  NAME  OF  JeSUS  CHRIST  Our  Lord,  both 

theirs  and  ours,"  1  Cor.  i,  2.  "  It  appears,  from  the  expression  here 
and  elsewhere  used,  that  to  invocate  the  name  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ 
was  a  practice  characterizing  and  distinguishing  Christians  from  infi- 
dels." (Dr.  Benson.)  Thus  St.  Paul  is  said,  before  his  conversion,  to 
have  had  "  authority  from  the  chief  priests  to  bind  all  that  call  upon 
thy  name."  The  Socinian  criticism  is,  that  the  phrase  eniKaXeio-&at.  to 
ovofia  may  be  translated  either  "  to  call  on  the  name,"  or  be  called  by  the 
name ;  and  they,  therefore,  render  1  Cor.  i,  2,  "  all  that  are  called  by 
the  name  of  Jesus  Christ."  If,  however,  all  that  can  be  said  in  favour 
of  this  rendering  is,  that  the  verb  may  be  rendered  passively,  how  is  it 
that  they  choose  to  render  it  actively  in  all  places,  except  where  their 
system  is  to  be  served  ?  This  itself  is  suspicious.  But  it  is  not  neces- 
sary to  produce  the  refutations  of  this  criticism  given  by  several  of  their 
learned  opponents,  who  have  shown  that  the  verb,  followed  by  an  accu- 
sative case,  usually,  if  not  constantly,  is  used,  in  its  active  signification, 
to  call  upon,  to  invoice.  One  passage  is  sufficient  to  prove  both  the 
active  signification  of  the  phrase,  when  thus  applied,  and  also  that  to 
call  upon  the  name  of  Christ  is  an  act  of  the  highest  worship.  "  For 
whosoever  shall  call  upon  the  name  of  the  Lord  shall  be  saved,"  Rom. 
x,  13.  This  is  quoted  from  the  Prophet  Joel.  St.  Peter,  in  his  ser- 
mon on  the  day  of  pentecost,  makes  use  of  it  as  a  prophecy  of  Christ, 
and  the  argument  of  St.  Paul  imperatively  requires  us  also  to  understand 
it  of  him.  Now  this  prophecy  proves  that  the  phrase  in  question  is 
used  for  invocation,  since  it  is  not  true  that  whosoever  shall  be  called  by 
the  name  of  the  Lord  will  be  saved,  but  those  only  who  rightly  call  upon 
it;  it  proves  also  that  the  calling  upon  the  name  of  the  Lord,  here 
mentioned,  is  a  religious  act,  for  it  is  calling  upon  the  name  of  Jehovah, 
the  word  used  by  the  Prophet  Joel,  the  consequence  of  which  act  of 
faith  and  worship  is  salvation.  "  This  text,  indeed,  presents  us  with  a 
double  argument  in  favour  of  our  Lord's  Divinity.  First,  it  applies  to 
him  what,  by  the  Prophet  Joel,  is  spoken  of  Jehovah  ;  secondly,  it 
affirms  him  to  be  the  object  of  religious  adoration.  Either  of  these 
particulars  does,  indeed,  imply  the  other ;  for  if  he  be  Jehovah,  he  must 
be  the  object  of  religious  adoration ;  and  if  he  be  the  object  of  reli- 
gious adoration,  he  must  be  Jehovah."  (Bishop  Home.) 


602  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  /PART 

In  the  Revelation,  too,  we  find  St.  John  worshipping  Christ,  "  falling 
at  his  feet  as  one  dead."  St.  Paul  also  declares  "  that  at  the  name  of 
Jesus  every  katee  shall  bow,"  which,  in  Scripture  language,  signifies  an 
act  of  religious  worship.  "  For  this  cause  I  bow  my  knees  to  the  Father 
of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ." 

But  this  homage  and  adoration  of  Christ  is  not  confined  to  men  ;  it  is 
practised  among  heavenly  beings.  "  And  again,  when  he  bringeth  in  the 
first  begotten  into  the  world,  he  saith,  And  let  all  the  angels  of  God 
worship  him."  For  the  purpose  of  evading  the  force  of  these  words, 
the  Socinians,  in  their  version,  have  chosen  the  absurdity  of  rendering 
ayysXoi  throughout  this  chapter,  by  "  messengers,'"  but  in  the  next  chapter, 
as  though  the  subject  would,  by  that  time,  be  out  of  the  reader's  mind, 
they  return  to  the  common  version,  "  angels."  Thus  they  make  the 
"  spirits  and  flames  of  fire,"  or,  as  they  render  it,  "  winds  and  flames  of 
lightning,"  to  be  the  ancient  prophets  or  messengers,  not  angels ;  and 
of  these  same  prophets  and  messengers,  who  lived  several  thousand  years 
ago,  their  translation  affirms  that  they  "  are  sent,  forth  to  minister  for  them 
who  shall  be  (in  future  !)  heirs  of  salvation."  The  absurdity  is  so  appa- 
rent, that  it  is  scarcely  necessary  to  add,  that,  in  the  New  Testament, 
though  "angel"  is  sometimes  applied  to  men,  yet  "angels  of  God"  is 
a  phrase  never  used,  but  to  express  an  order  of  heavenly  intelligences. 

If,  however,  either  prophets  or  angels  were  commanded  to  worship 
Christ,  his  Divinity  would  be  equally  proved,  and,  therefore,  the  note  on 
this  text,  in  the  New  Version  teaches,  that "  to  worship  Christ"  here  means 
to  acknowledge  him  as  their  superior ;  and  urges  that  the  text  is  cited 
from  the  LXX,  Deut.  xxxii,  43,  "  where  it  is  spoken  of  the  Hebrew 
nation,  and,  therefore,  cannot  be  understood  of  religious  worship."  But 
whoever  will  turn  to  the  LXX,  will  see  that  it  is  not  the  Hebrew  nation, 
but  Jehovah,  who  is  exhibited  in  that  passage  as  the  object  of  worship  ; 
and  if,  therefore,  the  text  were  cited  from  the  book  of  Deuteronomy,  and 
the  genuineness  of  the  passage  in  the  LXX  were  allowed,  for  it  is  not  in 
the  present  Hebrew  text,  it  would  only  afford  another  proof,  that,  in  the 
mind  of  the  apostles,  the  Jehovah  of  the  Old  Testament  and  the  Christ 
of  the  New  are  the  same  being,  and  that  equal  worship  is  due  to  both. 
We  have,  however,  an  unquestioned  text  in  the  Old  Testament,  Psalm 
xcvii,  7,  from  which  the  quotation  is  obviously  made  ;  where,  in  the 
Hebrew,  it  is  "  worship  him.  ail  ye  gods,"  a  probable  ellipsis  for  "  the 
angels  of  the  Aleim ;"  for  the  LXX  uses  the  word  "  angels."  This 
psalm  the  apostle,  therefore,  understood  of  Christ,  and  in  this  the  old 
Jewish  interpreters  agree  with  him ;  (6)  and  though  he  is  not  mentioned 
in  it  by  any  of  his  usual  Old  Testament  titles,  except  that  of  Jehovah,  it 

(6)  "  Psalmos  omnes  a  XCIII  ad  CI  in  se  continere  mysterium  Messirp,  dixit 
David  Kimshi."  (Rosenmuller.) 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  603 

clearly  predicts  the  overthrow  of  idolatry  by  the  introduction  of  the  king, 
dom  of  this  Jehovah.  It  follows  then,  that  as  idolatry  was  not  overthrown 
by  Judaism,  but  by  the  kingdom  of  Christ,  it  is  Christ,  as  the  head  and 
author  of  this  kingdom,  of  whom  the  psalmist  speaks,  and  whom  he  sees 
receiving  the  worship  of  the  angels  of  God  upon  its  introduction  and 
establishment.  This,  also,  agrees  with  the  words  by  which  the  apostle 
introduces  the  quotation.  "  And  again,  when  he  bringeth  in  the  first 
begotten  into  the  world"  the  habitable  world  ;  which  intimates  that  it 
was  upon  some  solemn  occasion,  when  engaged  in  some  solemn  act, 
that,  the  angels  were  commanded  to  worship  him,  and  this  act  is  repre- 
sented in  the  ninety-seventh  Psalm  as  the  establishment  of  his  kingdom. 
Bishop  Horsley's  remarks  on  this  psalm  are  equally  just  and  beautiful. 

"  That  Jehovah's  kingdom  in  some  sense  or  other  is  the  subject 
of  this  Divine  song,  cannot  be  made  a  question,  for  thus  it  opens, — 
'  Jehovah  reigneth.'  The  psalm,  therefore,  must  be  understood,  either 
of  God's  natural  kingdom  over  his  whole  creation ;  of  his  particular 
kingdom  over  the  Jews,  his  chosen  people  ;  or  of  that  kingdom  which 
is  called  in  the  New  Testament  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  the  kingdom  of 
God,  or  the  kingdom  of  Christ.  For  of  any  other  kingdom  beside  these 
three,  man  never  heard  or  read.  God's  peculiar  kingdom  over  the  Jews 
cannot  be  the  subject  of  this  psalm,  because  all  nations  of  the  earth  are 
called  upon  to  rejoice  in  the  acknowledgment  of  this  great  truth, '  Jeho- 
vah reigneth,  let  the  earth  rejoice  ;  let  the  many  isles  be  glad  thereof.' 
The  many  isles  are  the  various  regions  of  the  habitable  world. 

"  The  same  consideration,  that  Jehovah's  kingdom  is  mentioned  as  a 
subject  of  general  thanksgiving,  proves  that  God's  universal  dominion 
over  his  whole  creation  cannot  be  the  kingdom  in  the  prophet's  mind. 
For  in  this  kingdom  a  great  majority  of  the  ancient  world,  the  idola- 
ters, were  considered,  not  as  subjects  who  might  rejoice  in  the  glory 
of  their  monarch  ;  but  as  rebels  who  had  every  thing  to  fear  from  his 
just  resentment. 

"  It  remains,  therefore,  that  Christ's  kingdom  is  that  kingdom  of  Jeho- 
vah which  the  inspired  poet  celebrates  as  the  occasion  of  universal  joy. 
And  this  will  farther  appear  by  the  sequel  of  the  song.  After  four  verses, 
in  which  the  transcendent  glory,  the  irresistible  power,  and  inscru- 
table perfection  of  the  Lord,  who  to  the  joy  of  all  nations  reigneth, 
are  painted  in  poetical  images,  taken  partly  from  the  awful  scene  on 
Sinai  which  accompanied  the  delivery  of  the  law,  partly  from  other 
manifestations  of  God's  presence  with  the  Israelites  in  their  journey 
through  the  wilderness,  he  proceeds,  in  the  sixth  verse,  '  The  heavens 
declare  his  righteousness,  and  all  the  people  see  his  glory.'  We  read  in  the 
19th  Psalm,  that  •  the  heavens  declare  the  glory  of  God.'  And  the  glory 
of  God,  the  power  and  the  intelligence  of  the  Creator,  is  indeed  visibly 
declared  in  the  fabric  of  the  material  world.     But  I  cannot  see  how  the 


604  THEOLOGICAL   INSTITUTES.  [P^RT 

structure  of  the  heavens  can  demonstrate  the  righteousness  of  God. 
Wisdom  and  power  may  be  displayed  in  the  contrivance  of  an  inanimate 
machine  ;  but  righteousness  cannot  appear  in  the  arrangement  of  the 
parts,  or  the  direction  of  the  motions  of  lifeless  matter.  The  heavens 
therefore,  in  their  external  structure,  cannot  declare  their  Maker's  right- 
eousness. But  the  heavens,  in  another  sense,  attested  the  righteousness 
of  Christ  when  the  voice  from  heaven  declared  him  the  beloved  Son  of 
God,  in  whom  the  Father  was  well  pleased ;  and  when  the  preternatural 
darkness  of  the  sun  at  the  crucifixion,  and  other  agonies  of  nature,  drew 
that  confession  from  the  heathen  centurion  who  attended  the  execution, 
that  the  suffering  Jesus  was  the  Son  of  God  ;  'And  all  the  people  see  his 
glory.'  The  word  people,  in  the  singular,  for  the  most  part  denotes  God's 
chosen  people,  the  Jewish  nation,  unless  any  other  particular  people 
happen  to  be  the  subject  of  discourse.  But  peoples,  in  the  plural,  is  put 
for  all  the  other  races  of  mankind  as  distinct  from  the  chosen  people. 
The  word  here  is  in  the  plural  form,  *  And  all  the  peoples  see  his  glory.' 
But  when,  or  in  what  did  any  of  the  peoples,  the  idolatrous  nations,  see 
the  glory  of  God  ?  Literally  they  never  saw  his  glory.  The  effulgence 
of  the  Shechinah  never  was  displayed  to  them,  except  when  it  blazed 
forth  upon  the  Egyptians  to  strike  them  with  a  panic ;  or  when  the  tower- 
ing pillar  of  flame,  which  marshalled  the  Israelites  in  the  wilderness,  was 
seen  by  the  inhabitants  of  Palestine  and  Arabia  as  a  threatening  meteor 
in  their  sky.  Intellectually  no  idolaters  ever  saw  the  glory  of  God,  for 
they  never  acknowledged  his  power  and  Godhead  :  had  they  thus  seen 
his  glory,  they  had  ceased  to  be  idolaters.  But  all  the  peoples,  by  the 
preaching  of  the  Gospel,  saw  the  glory  of  Christ.  They  saw  it  literally 
in  the  miracles  performed  by  his  apostles  ;  they  saw  it  spiritually  when 
they  perceived  the  purity  of  his  precepts,  when  they  acknowledged  the 
truth  of  his  doctrine,  when  they  embraced  the  profession  of  Christianity, 
and  owned  Christ  for  their  Saviour  and  their  God.  The  psalmist  goes 
on,  <  Confounded  be  all  they  that  serve  graven  images,  that  boast  them- 
selves of  idols.  Worship  him,  all  ye  gods.'  In  the  original  this  verse 
has  not  at  all  the  form  of  a  malediction,  which  it  has  acquired  in  our 
translation  from  the  use  of  the  strong  word  confounded.  *  Let  them  be 
ashamed.''  This  is  the  utmost  that  the  psalmist  says.  The  prayer  that 
they  may  be  ashamed  of  their  folly  and  repent  of  it,  is  very  different 
from  an  imprecation  of  confusion.  But  in  truth  the  psalmist  rather  seems 
to  speak  prophetically,  without  anything  either  of  prayer  or  imprecation 
— '  they  shall  be  ashamed.'  Having  seen  the  glory  of  Christ  they  shall 
be  ashamed  of  the  idols,  which  in  the  times  of  ignorance  they  worshipped. 
In  the  8th  and  9th  verses,  looking  forward  to  the  times  when  the  fulness 
of  the  Gentiles  shall  be  come  in,  and  the  remnant  of  Israel  shall  turn  to 
the  Lord,  he  describes  the  daughter  of  Judah  as  rejoicing  at  the  news 
of  the  mercy  extended  to  the  Gentile  world,  and  exulting  in  the  univer- 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES.  605 

sal  extent  of  Jehovah's  kingdom,  and  the  general  acknowledgment  of 
his  Godhead."     (Nine  Sermons.) 

The  argument  of  the  apostle  is  thus  made  clear ;  he  proves  Christ 
superior  to  angels,  and  therefore  Divine,  because  angels  themselves  are 
commanded  "to  worship  him."  (7)  Nor  is  this  the  only  prophetic 
psalm  in  which  the  religious  worship  of  Messiah  is  predicted.  The 
72d  Psalm,  alone,  is  full  of  this  doctrine.  "  They  shall  feak  thee  as 
long  as  the  sun  and  moon  endure."  "  All  kings  shall  worship  (or, 
fall  down)  before  him ;  all  nations  shall  serve  him."  *  Prayer 
shall  be  made  ever  for  (or,  to)  him,  and  daily  shall  he  be  praised." 

Finally,  as  to  the  direct  worship  of  Christ,  the  book  of  Revelation,  in 
its  scenic  representations,  exhibits  him  as,  equally  with  the  Father,  the 
object  of  the  worship  of  angels  and  of  glorified  saints  ;  and,  in  chapter 
eighth,  places  every  creature  in  the  universe,  the  inhabitants  of  hell  only 
excepted,  in  prostrate  adoration  at  his  footstool.  "  And  every  creature 
which  is  in  heaven,  and  on  the  earth,  and  under  the  earth,  and  such  as 
are  in  the  sea,  and  all  that  are  in  them,  heard  I  saying,  Blessing,  and 
honour,  and  glory,  and  power,  be  unto  him  that  sitteth  upon  the  throne, 
and  unto  the  Lamb  for  ever  and  ever." 

To  these  instances  are  to  be  added,  all  the  doxologies  to  Christ,  in 
common  with  the  Father  and  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  all  the  benedictions 
made  in  his  name  in  common  with  theirs ;  for  all  these  are  forms  of 
worship.  The  first  consist  of  ascriptions  of  equal  and  Divine  honours, 
with  grateful  recognitions  of  the  Being  addressed,  as  the  author  of  bene- 
fits received ;  the  second  are  a  solemn  blessing  of  others  in  the  name 
of  God,  and  were  derived  from  the  practice  of  the  Jewish  priests  and 
the  still  older  patriarchs,  who  blessed  others  in  the  name  of  Jehovah,  as 
his  representatives. 

Of  the  first,  the  following  may  be  given  as  a  few  out  of  many  instances  : 
*'  The  Lord  shall  deliver  me  from  every  evil  work,  and  will  preserve  me 
to  his  heavenly  kingdom  :  to  whom  be  glory  for  ever  and  ever,"  2  Tim. 
iv,  18.  "But  grow  in  grace,  and  in  the  knowledge  of  our  Lord  and 
Saviour  Jesus  Christ :  to  him  be  glory  both  now  and  for  ever.  Amen," 
2  Pet.  iii,  18.  "Unto  him  that  loved  us,  and  washed  us  from  our  sins 
in  his  own  blood,  and  hath  made  us  kings  and  priests  unto  God  and  his 
Father ;  to  him  be  glory  and  dominion  for  ever  and  ever.  Amen," 
Rev.  i,  5,  6.  "  When  we  consider  the  great  difference  between  these 
doxologies  and  the  commendations  but  sparingly  given  in  the  Scriptures 
to  mere  men  ;  the  serious  and  reverential  manner  in  which  they  are 
introduced ;  and  the  superlative  praise  they  convey,  so  far  surpassing 
what  humanity  can  deserve,  we  cannot  but  suppose  that  the  Being  to 
whom  they  refer  is  really  Divine.    The  ascription  of  eternal  glory  and 

(7)  "  Ceterum  rocte  argumentatur  apostolus :  si  angeli  Regem  ilium  maximum 
Idoraro  debent ;  ergo  sunt  illo  inferiores."     (Rosenmuller  in  he.) 


606  THEOLOGICAL   INSTITUTES.  fPABT 

everlasting  dominion,  if  addressed  to  any  creature,  however  exalted, 
would  be  idolatrous  and  profane."  (HolderCs  Testimonies.)  Of  benedic- 
tions the  commencement  and  conclusion  of  several  of  the  epistles  furnish 
instances,  so  regular  in  their  form,  as  to  make  it  clearly  appear,  that  the 
apostles  and  the  priests  of  the  New  Testament  constantly  blessed  the  peo- 
ple ministerially  in  the  name  of  Christ,  as  one  of  the  blessed  trinity.  This 
consideration  alone  shows  that  the  benedictions  are  not,  as  the  Socinians 
would  take  them,  to  be  considered  as  cursory  expressions  of  good  will. 
"Grace  to  you,  and  peace  from  God  our  Father  and  the  Lord  Jesus 
Christ."  This,  with  little  variation,  is  the  common  form  of  salutation  ; 
and  the  usual  parting  benediction  is,  "  The  grace  of  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ  bo  with  you  all ;"  or,  more  fully,  "  The  grace  of  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ,  (.he  love  of  God,  and  the  communion  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  be  with 
you  all."  In  answer  to  the  Socinian  perversion,  that  these  are  mere 
"  wishes,"  it  has  been  well  and  wisely  observed,  that  "  this  objection 
overlooks,  or  notices  very  slightly,  the  point  on  which  the  whole  ques- 
tion turns,  the  nature  of  the  blessings  sought,  and  the  qualities  which 
they  imply  in  the  Person  as  whose  donation  they  are  deliberately  de- 
sired. These  blessings  are  not  of  that  kind  which  one  creature  is  com- 
petent to  bestow  upon  another.  They  refer  to  the  judicial  state  of  an 
accountable  being  before  God,  to  the  remission  of  moral  offences,  to  the 
production  and  preservation  of  certain  mental  qualities  which  none  can 
efficaciously  and  immediately  give  but  He  who  holds  the  dominion  of 
human  tninds  and  feelings,  and  to  the  enjoyments  of  supreme  and  end- 
less felicity.  They  are  grace,  mercy,  and  peace.  Grace,  the  free 
favour  of  the  Eternal  Majesty  to  those  who  have  forfeited  every  claim 
to  it,  such  favour  as  in  its  own  nature  and  in  the  contemplation  of  the 
supplicant,  is  the  sole  and  effective  cause  of  deliverance  from  the  great- 
est evils,  and  acquisition  of  the  greatest  good.  Mercy,  the  compassion 
of  infinite  goodness,  conferring  its  richest  bestowments  of  holiness  and 
happiness  on  the  ruined,  miserable,  and  helpless.  Peace,  the  tranquil 
and  delightful  feeling  which  results  from  the  rational  hope  of  possessing 
these  enjoyments.  These  are  the  highest  blessings  that  Omnipotent 
Benevolence  can  give,  or  a  dependent  nature  receive.  To  desire  such 
blessings,  either  in  the  mode  of  direct  address  or  in  that  of  precatory 
wish,  from  any  being  who  is  not  possessed  of  omnipotent  goodness, 
would  be,  not  *  innocent  and  proper,'  but  sinful  and  absurd  in  the  highest 
degree.  When,  therefore,  we  find  every  apostle  whose  epistles  are  ex- 
tant, pouring  out  his  'expressions  of  desire,' with  the  utmost  simplicity 
and  energy,  for  these  blessings,  as  proceeding  from  '  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ,'  equally  with  '  God  our  Father,'  we  cannot  but  regard  it  as  the 
just  and  necessary  conclusion  that  Christ  and  the  Father  are  one  in  the 
perfection  which  originates  the  highest  blessings,  and  in  the  honour  due 
for  the  gift  of  those  blessings."     (Smith,s  Person  of  Christ.) 


SECONI>-]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  607 

So  clearly  does  the  New  Testament  show  that  supreme  worship  waa 
paid  to  Christ,  as  well  as  to  the  Father ;  and  the  practice  obtained  as  a 
matter  of  course,  as  a  matter  quite  undisputed  in  the  primitive  Church, 
and  has  so  continued,  in  all  orthodox  Churches,  to  this  day.  Thus 
heathen  writers  represented  the  first  Christians  as  worshippers  of 
Christ ;  and,  as  for  the  practice  of  the  primitive  Church,  it  is  not  neces- 
sary to  quote  passages  from  the  fathers,  which  are  so  well  known,  or  so 
easily  found  in  all  books  which  treat  on  this  subject.  It  is  sufficient 
evidence  of  the  practice,  that  when,  in  the  fourth  century,  the  Arians 
taught,  that  our  Lord  was  a  super  angelic  creature  only,  they  departed 
no!,  in  the  instance  of  worship,  from  the  homage  paid  to  him  in  the  uni- 
versal Church ;  but  continued  to  adore  Christ.  On  this  ground  the 
orthodox  justly  branded  them  with  idolatry ;  and,  in  order  to  avoid  the 
force  of  the  charge,  they  invented  those  sophistical  distinctions  as  to 
superior  and  inferior  worship  which  the  papists,  in  later  times,  intro- 
duced, in  order  to  excuse  the  worship  of  saints  and  angels.  Even  the 
old  Socinians  allowed  Christ  to  be  the  object  of  religious  adoration ; 
so  impossible  was  it,  even  for  them,  to  oppose  themselves  all  at  once  to 
the  reproving  and  condemning  universal  example  of  the  Church  of  Christ 
in  all  ages. 

Having,  then,  established  the  fact  of  the  worship  of  Christ  by  hia 
immediate  followers,  whose  precepts  and  example  have,  in  this  matter 
been  followed  by  all  the  faithful ;  let  us  consider  the  religious  principles 
which  the  first  disciples  held,  in  order  to  determine  whether  they  could 
have  so  worshipped  Christ,  unless  his  true  Divinity  had  been,  with  them, 
a  fundamental  and  universally  received  doctrine.  They  were  Jews ; 
and  Jews  of  an  age  in  which  their  nation  had  long  shaken  off  its  idola- 
trous propensities,  and  which  was  distinguished  by  its  zeal  against  all 
worship,  or  expressions  of  religious  trust  and  hope  being  directed,  not- 
only  to  false  gods,  (to  idols,)  but  to  creatures.  The  great  principle  of 
the  law  was,  "Thou  shalt  have  no  other  gods  before  (or,  beside)  me." 
It  was,  therefore,  commanded  by  Moses,  "  Thou  shalt  fear  the  Lord  thy 
God,  and  him  shalt  thou  serve;"  which  words  are  quoted  by  our  Lord 
in  his  temptation,  when  solicited  to  worship  Satan,  so  as  to  prove  that 
to  fear  God  and  to  serve  him  are  expressions  which  signify  worship,  and 
that  all  other  beings  but  God  are  excluded  from  it.  "Thou  shalt  wor- 
shii  the  Lord  thy  God,  and  him  only  shalt  thou  serve."  The  argu- 
ment,  too,  in  the  quotation,  is  not  that  Satan  had  no  right  to  receive 
worship  because  he  was  an  evil  spirit;  but  that,  whatever  he  might  be, 
or  whoever  should  make  that  claim,  God  only  is  to  be  worshipped.  By 
this,  also,  we  see  that  Christianity  made  no  alteration  in  Judaism,  as  to 
the  article;  of  doctrine,  for  our  Lord  himself  here  adopts  it  as  his  own 
principle  ;  he  quotes  it  from  the  writings  of  Moses,  and  so  transmitted 
it,  on  his  own  authority,  to  his  followers.     Accordingly,  we  find  the 


608  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PAR 

apostles  teaching  and  practising  this  as  a  first  principle  of  their  religion. 
St.  Paul,  Rom.  i,  21-25,  charges  the  heathen  with  not  glorifying  God 
when  they  knew  him,  and  worshipping  and  serving  "  the  creature  more 
than  (or,  beside)  the  Creator,  who  is  blessed  for  ever."  "  Wherein  the 
apostle,"  says  Waterland,  "  plainly  intimates,  that  the  Creator  only  is 
to  be  served,  and  that  the  idolatry  of  the  heathens  lay  in  their  worship, 
ping  of  the  creature.  He  does  not  blame  them  for  giving  sovereign  or 
absolute  worship  to  creatures ;  they  could  scarcely  be  so  silly  as  to 
imagine  there  could  be  more  than  one  supreme  God ;  but  for  giving 
any  worship  to  them  at  all,  sovereign  or  inferior."  [Defence  of  Queries.) 
Again  :  when  he  mentions  it  as  one  of  the  crimes  of  the  Galatians,  pre- 
vious  to  their  conversion  to  Christianity,  that  they  "  did  service  unto 
them  which  by  nature  were  no  gods,"  he  plainly  intimates,  that  no  one 
has  a  title  to  religious  service  but  he  who  is  by  nature  God ;  and,  if  so, 
he  himself  could  not  worship  or  do  service  to  Christ,  unless  he  believed 
him  to  possess  a  natural  and  essential  Divinity. 

The  practice  of  the  apostles,  too,  was  in  strict  accordance  with  this 
principle.  Thus,  when  worship  was  offered  to  St.  Peter,  by  Cornelius, 
who  certainly  did  not  take  him  to  be  God,  he  forbade  it :  so  also  Paul  and 
Barnabas  forbade  it  at  Lystra,  with  expressions  of  horror,  when  offered 
to  them.  An  eminent  instance  is  recorded,  also,  of  the  exclusion  of  all 
creatures,  however  exalted,  from  this  honour,  in  Rev.  xix,  10,  where 
the  angel  refuses  to  receive  so  much  as  the  outward  act  of  adoration, 
giving  this  rule  and  maxim  upon  it,  "  Worship  God  ;"  intimating  there- 
by, that  God  only  is  to  be  worshipped  ;  that  all  acts  of  religious  worship 
are  appropriated  to  God  alone.  He  does  not  say,  "  Worship  God,  and 
whom  God  shall  appoint  to  be  worshipped,"  as  if  he  had  appointed  any 
beside  God ;  nor  "  Worship  God  with  sovereign  worship,"  as  if  any 
inferior  sort  of  worship  was  permitted  to  be  paid  to  creatures ;  but 
simply,  plainly,  and  briefly,  "  Worship  God." 

From  the  known  and  avowed  religious  sentiments,  then,  of  the  apos- 
ties,  both  as  Jews  and  as  Christians,  as  well  as  from  their  practice, 
it  follows  that  they  could  not  pay  religious  worship  to  Christ,  a  fact 
which  has  already  been  established,  except  they  had  considered  him 
as  a  Divine  person,  and  themselves  as  bound,  on  that  account,  ac- 
cording to  his  own  words,  to  honour  the  Son,  even  as  they  honoured  the 
Father. 

The  Arians,  it  is  true,  as  hinted  above,  devised  the  doctrine  of  su- 
preme and  inferior  worship,  and  a  similar  distinction  was  maintained  by 
Dr.  Samuel  Clarke,  to  reconcile  the  worship  of  Christ  with  his  semi- 
Arianism.  The  same  sophistical  distinctions  are  resorted  to  by  Roman 
Catholics  to  vindicate  the  worship  of  angels,  the  Virgin  Mary,  and  de- 
parted saints.  This  distinction  they  express  by  Xar^tia  and  (5ouX«ja. 
St..  Paul,  however,  and  other  sacred  writers,  and  the  early  fathers,  cer- 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL   INSTITUTES.  609 

tainly  use  these  terms  promiscuously  and  indifferently,  so  that  the  ar- 
gument which  is  founded  upon  them,  in  defence  of  this  inferior  and 
subordinate  worship,  falls  to  the  ground ;  and,  as  to  all  these  distinc- 
tions of  worship  into  ultimate  or  supreme,  mediate  or  inferior,  Dr. 
Waterland  has  most  forcibly  observed, — 

1.  "I  can  meet  with  nothing  in  Scripture  to  countenance  those  fine- 
jpun  notions.  Prayer  we  often  read  of;  but  there  is  not  a  syllable 
about  absolute  and  relative,  supreme  and  inferior  prayer.  We  are 
commanded  to  pray  fervently  and  incessantly ;  but  never  sovereignly 
or  absolutely  that  I  know  of.  We  have  no  rules  left  us  about  raising 
or  lowering  our  intentions,  in  proportion  to  the  dignity  of  the  objects. 
Some  instructions  to  this  purpose  might  have  been  highly  useful ;  and 
it  is  very  strange  that,  in  a  matter  of  so  great  importance,  no  direc- 
tions should  be  given,  either  in  Scripture,  or,  at  least,  in  antiquity, 
how  to  regulate  our  intentions  and  meanings,  with  metaphysical  exact- 
ness ;  so  as  to  make  our  worship  either  high,  higher,  or  highest  of  all, 
as  occasion  should  require. 

2.  "  But  a  greater  objection  against  this  doctrine  is,  that  the  whole 
tenor  of  Scripture  runs  counter  to  it.  This  may  be  understood,  in  part, 
from  what  I  have  observed  above.  To  make  it  yet  plainer,  I  shall  tako 
into  consideration  such  acts  and  instances  of  worship,  as  I  find  laid 
down  in  Scripture,  whether  under  the  old  or  new  dispensation. 

"  Sacrifice  was  one  instance  of  worship  required  under  the  law  ;  and 
it  is  said,  '  He  that  sacrificeth  unto  any  god,  save  unto  the  Lord  only, 
he  shall  be  utterly  destroyed,'  Exod.  xxii,  20.  Now  suppose  any  per- 
son, considering  with  himself  that  only  absolute  and  sovereign  sacrifice 
was  appropriated  to  God,  by  this  law,  should  have  gone  and  sacrificed 
to  other  gods,  and  have  been  convicted  of  it  before  the  judges : — the 
apology  he  must  have  made  for  it,  I  suppose,  must  have  run  thus : 
1  Gentlemen,  though  I  have  sacrificed  to  other  gods,  yet,  I  hope,  you  '11 
observe,  that  I  did  it  not  absolutely  :  I  meant  not  any  absolute  or  su- 
preme sacrifice,  (which  is  all  that  the  law  forbids,)  but  relative  and 
inferior  only.  I  regulated  my  intentions  with  all  imaginable  care, 
and  my  esteem  with  the  most  critical  exactness :  I  considered  the 
other  gods,  whom  I  sacrificed  to,  as  inferior  only,  and  infinitely  so ;  re- 
serving all  sovereign  sacrifice  to  the  supreme  God  of  Israel.'  This,  or 
the  like  apology,  must,  I  presume,  have  brought  off  the  criminal,  with 
some  applause  for  his  acuteness,  if  your  principles  be  true.  Either 
you  must  allow  this  ;  or  you  must  be  content  to  say,  that  not  only  ab- 
solute supreme  sacrifice,  (if  there  be  any  sense  in  that  phrase,)  but  all 
sacrifice  was,  by  the  law,  appropriated  to  God  only. 

"  Another  instance  of  worship  is,  making  of  vows,  religious  vows. 
We  find  as  little  appearance  of  your  famed  distinction  here,  as  in  the 
former  case.    We  read  nothing  of  sovereign  and  inferior,  absolute  and 

Vol.  I.  39 


610  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  |PART 

relative  vows ;  that  we  should  imagine  supreme  vows  to  be  appropriate 
to  God,  inferior  permitted  to  angels  or  idols,  or  to  any  creature. 

"  Swearing  is  another  instance  much  of  the  same  kind  with  the 
foregoing.  Swearing  by  God's  name  is  a  plain  thing,  and  well  under- 
stood :  but  if  you  tell  us  of  sovereign  and  inferior  swearing,  according 
to  the  inward  respect  or  intention  you  have,  in  proportion  to  the  dig- 
nity of  the  person  by  whose  name  you  swear,  it  must  sound  perfectly 
new  to  us.  All  swearing  which  comes  short  in  its  respects,  or  falls 
below  sovereign,  will,  I  am  afraid,  be  little  better  than  profaneness. 

"  Such  being  the  case  in  respect  of  the  acts  of  religious  worship  al- 
ready mentioned,  I  am  now  to  ask  you,  what  is  there  so  peculiar  in  the 
case  of  invocation  and  adoration,  that  they  should  not  be  thought  of  the 
same  kind  with  the  other  ?  Why  should  not  absolute  and  relative  prayer 
and  prostration  appear  as  absurd  as  absolute  and  relative  sacrifice,  vows, 
oaths,  or  the  like  ?  They  are  acts  and  instances  of  religious  worship, 
like  the  other ;  appropriated  to  God  in  the  same  manner,  and  by  the 
same  laws,  and  upon  the  same  grounds  and  reasons.  Well  then,  will 
you  please  to  consider  whether  you  have  not  begun  at  the  wrong  end, 
and  committed  an  varepov  nporepov  in  your  way  of  thinking.  You  ima- 
gine that  acts  of  religious  worship  are  to  derive  their  signification  and 
quality  from  the  intention  and  meaning  of  the  worshippers ;  whereas  the 
very  reverse  of  it  is  the  truth.  Their  meaning  and  signification  is  fixed 
and  determined  by  God  himself;  and  therefore  we  are  never  to  use 
them  with  any  other  meaning,  under  peril  of  profaneness  or  idolatry. 
God  has  not  left  us  at  liberty  to  fix  what  sense  Ave  please  upon  religious 
worship,  to  render  it  high  or  low,  absolute  or  relative,  at  discretion,  su- 
preme when  offered  to  God,  and  if  to  others  inferior :  as  when  to  an- 
gels, or  saints,  or  images,  in  suitable  proportion.  No  :  religion  was  not 
made  for  metaphysical  heads  only  ;  such  as  might  nicely  distinguish  the 
several  degrees  and  elevations  of  respect  and  honour  among  many  ob- 
jects. The  short  and  plain  way,  which  (in  pity  to  human  infirmity,  and 
to  prevent  confusion,)  it  has  pleased  God  to  take  with  us,  is  to  make  all 
religious  worship  his  own  ;  and  so  it  is  sovereign  of  course.  This  I 
take  to  be  the  true  Scriptural,  as  well  as  only  reasonable  account  of  the 
object  of  worship.  We  need  not  concern  ourselves  (it  is  but  vain  to 
pretend  to  it)  about  determining  the  sense  and  meaning  of  religious  wor- 
ship. God  himself  has  taken  care  of  it ;  and  it  is  already  fixed  and 
determined  to  our  hands.  It  means,  whether  we  will  or  no,  it  means, 
b\i  Divine  institution  and  appointment,  the  divinity,  the  supremacy,  the 
sovereignty  of  its  object.  To  misapply  those  marks  of  dignity,  those 
appropriate  ensigns  of  Divine  majesty ;  to  compliment  any  creature 
with  them,  and  thereby  to  make  common  what  God  has  made  proper, 
is  to  deify  the  works  of  God's  hands,  and  to  serve  the  creature  instead 
of  the  Creator,  God  blessed  for  ever.    We  have  no  occasion  to  talk  of 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  611 

sovereign,  absolute  prayers,  and  such  other  odd  fancies :  prayer  is  an 
address  to  God,  and  does  not  admit  of  those  novel  distinctions.  In 
short  then,  here  is  no  room  left  for  your  distinguishing  between  sove- 
reign and  inferior  adoration.  You  must  first  prove,  what  you  have 
hitherto  presumed  only,  and  taken  for  granted,  that  you  are  at  liberty 
to  fix  what  meaning  and  signification  you  please  to  the  acts  of  reli- 
gious worship  ;  to  make  them  high  or  low  at  discretion.  This  you  will 
find  a  very  difficult  undertaking.  Scripture  is  beforehand  with  you ; 
und,  to  fix  it  more,  the  concurring  judgment  of  the  earliest  and  best 
Christian  writers.  All  religious  worship  is  hereby  determined  to  be 
what  you  call  absolute  and  sovereign.  Inferior  or  relative  worship 
appears  now  to  be  contradiction  in  sense,  as  it  is  novel  in  sound ;  like 
an  inferior  or  relative  god."  {Defence  of  Queries.) 

These  absurdities  have,  at  length,  been  discovered  by  Socinians 
themselves,  who,  notwithstanding  the  authority  of  Socinus,  have,  at 
length,  become,  in  this  respect,  consistent ;  and,  as  they  deny  the 
Divinity  of  our  Lord,  so  they  refuse  him  worship,  and  do  :not  "honour 
the  Son  as  they  honour  the  Father."  Their  refusal  to  do  so  must  be 
left  to  him  who  haih  said,  "  Kiss  the  Son,  lest  he  be  angry,  and  ye 
perish  from  the  way  ;"  but,  though  they  have  not  shunned  error,  they 
have,  at  least,  by  refusing  all  worship  to  Christ,  escaped  from  hypocrisy 

Numerous  other  passages  in  the  New  Testament,  in  addition  to  those 
on  which  some  remarks  have  been  offered,  might  be  adduced,  in  which 
the  Divinity  of  our  Lord  is  expressly  taught,  and  which  might  be  easily 
rescued  from  that  discreditable  and  unscholarly  criticism,  by  which 
Soeinian  writers  have  attempted  to  darken  their  evidence.  It  has, 
however,  been  my  object  rather  to  adduce  passages  which  directly  sup- 
port the  arguments  in  the  order  in  which  they  have  been  adduced,  than 
to  collect  those  which  are  more  insulated.  All  of  them  ought,  however, 
to  be  consulted  by  the  careful  student ;  and,  indeed,  from  many  texts  of 
this  description,  which  appear  to  be  but  incidentally  introduced,  the 
evidence  that  the  doctrine  of  the  Godhead  of  Christ  was  taught  by  the 
apostles,  is  presented  to  us  with  this  impressive  circumstance,  that  the 
inspired  writers  of  the  New  Testament  all  along  assume  it  as  a  point 
which  was  never,  in  that  age,  questioned  by  true  Christians.  It  influ- 
enced, therefore,  the  turn  of  their  language,  and  established  a  tlieologi- 
cal  style  among  them  when  speaking  of  Christ,  which  cannot  possibly 
be  reconciled  to  any  hypothesis  which  excludes  his  essential  Deity  ;  and 
which  no  honest,  or  even  rational,  men  could  have  fallen  into,  unless 
they  had  acknowledged  and  worshipped  their  Master  as  God. 

Out  of  this  numerous  class  of  passages,  one  will  suffice  for  illustra- 
tion. 

"  Let  this  mind  be  in  you,  which  was  also  in  Christ  Jesus,  who  being 
in  the  form  of  God,  thought  it  not  robbery  to  be  equal  with  God,  but 


612  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

made  himself  of  no  reputation,"  &c,  Philip,  ii,  5-7.  Here  the  apostle 
is  recommending  an  humble  and  benevolent  disposition  to  the  Philip, 
pians ;  and  he  enforces  it,  not  certainly  by  considerations  which  them- 
selves  needed  to  be  established  by  proof,  or  in  which  the  Philippians 
had  not  been  previously  instructed,  but  in  the  most  natural  manner,  and 
that  only  which  a  good  writer  could  adopt,  by  what  was  already  esta- 
blished, and  received  as  true  among  them.  It  was  already  admitted  by 
the  Philippians  as  an  undoubted  verity  of  the  Christian  religion,  that 
before  Christ  appeared  in  "  the  form  of  a  servant,"  he  existed  "  in  the 
form  of  God,"  and  before  he  was  "  found  in  fashion  as  a  man,"  he  was 
such  a  being  as  could  not  think  it  "  robbery  to  be  equal  with  God."  On 
these  very  grounds  the  example  of  Christ  is  proposed  to  his  followers, 
and  its  imitation  enforced  upon  them.  This  incidental  and  familiar 
manner  of  introducing  so  great  a  subject,  clearly  shows  that  the  Divi. 
nity  of  Christ  was  a  received  doctrine  ;  but,  though  introduced  inciden- 
tally, the  terms  employed  by  the  apostle  are  as  strong  and  unequivocal 
as  if  he  had  undertaken  formally  to  propose  it.  It  is  not  necessary  to 
show  this  by  going  through  that  formidable  mass  of  verbal  criticism  which 
commentators,  scholiasts,  and  other  critics,  have  accumulated  around 
this  passage.  Happily  as  to  this,  as  well  as  many  other  important  texts 
which  form  the  bases  of  the  great  dogmata  of  Christianity,  much  less  is 
left  to  verbal  criticism  than  many  have  supposed  ;  the  various  clauses, 
together  with  the  connection,  so  illustrate  and  guard  the  meaning  as  to 
fix  their  sense,  and  make  it  obvious  to  the  general  reader.  "  Who  be- 
ing" or  "  subsisting  in  the  form  of  God."  This  is  the  first  character  of 
Christ's  exalted  pre-existent  state,  and  it  is  adduced  as  the  ground  of  a 
claim  which,  for  a  season,  he  divested  himself  of,  and  became,  there- 
fore, an  illustrious  example  of  humility  and  charity.  The  greatness  of 
Christ  is  first  laid  down,  then  what  he  renounced  of  that  which  was  due 
to  his  greatness,  and  finally  the  condition  is  introduced  to  which  he 
stooped  or  humbled  himself.  "  He  thought  it  not  robbery  to  be  equal 
with  God,  but  made  himself  of  no  reputation,  and  took  upon  him  the 
form  of  a  servant."  These  are,  obviously,  the  three  great  points  in 
this  celebrated  text,  to  the  consideration  of  which  we  are  strictly  bound 
by  the  apostle's  argument.  Let  each  be  briefly  considered,  and  it  will 
be  seen  how  impossible  it  is  to  explain  this  passage  in  any  way  which 
does  not  imply  our  Lord's  essential  Divinity.  To  be  or  to  subsist  in 
"  the  form  of  God,"  is  to  be  truly  and  essentially  God.  TMis  may,  in- 
deed, be  argued  from  the  word  /lop^rj,  though  some  have  confined  its 
meaning  to  external  form  or  appearance.  The  Socinian  exposition,  that 
"  the  form  of  God"  signifies  his  power  of  working  miracles,  needs  no 
other  refutation  than  that  the  apostle  here  speaks  of  what  our  Lord  was 
before  he  took  upon  him  the  form  of  a  servant,  and  was  made  in  the 
likeness  of  men.     The  notion,  too,  of  Whitby  and  others,  who  refer  it 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  613 

to  the  visible  glory  of  God,  in  which  he  appeared  to  the  patriarcns,  is 
also  disproved  by  this  manifest  consideration,  that  the  phrase  "  subsist- 
ing (u<rap5(wv)  in  the  form  of  God,"  describes  the  permanent  pre-exist 
ent  state  of  Christ.  He  subsisted  in  the  form  of  God,  therefore,  from 
eternity,  and  consequently  before  he  made  any  visibly  glorious  manifest- 
ations of  himself  to  the  patriarchs  ;  nor,  as  God  is  invisible  and  immate. 
rial,  and  consequently  has  no  likeness  of  figure,  could  our  Lord,  in  their 
sense,  "  subsist"  in  the  form  or  appearance  of  God.  If,  indeed,  "form" 
means  likeness,  it  must  be  intellectual  likeness,  and,  therefore,  to  subsist 
in  the  form  of  God  is  to  be  God,  for  he  could  not  be  the  likeness  of  God, 
or,  as  the  apostle  has  it  in  the  Hebrews,  the  "  express  image"  or  cha- 
racter of  his  person,  without  being  God ;  for  how  could  he  be  expressly 
like,  or  expressly  resemble,  or  have  the  appearance  of  omnipotence,  if 
ho  were  not  himself  almighty ;  or  of  omniscience,  if  not  himself  all- 
knowing  ?  Let  us  then  allow  that  (xop^/j  in  its  leading  sense  has  the  sig- 
nification of  form,  shape,  image,  and  similitude,  (8)  yet  this  can  only  be 
applied  to  the  Divine  Being  figuratively.  He  has  no  sensible  form,  no 
appearance,  and  nothing  can  be  in  this  form  or  image,  therefore,  but 
what  has  the  same  essential  properties  and  perfections.  "  Sed  age," 
says  Eisner,  "  largiamur  Socinianis  (xop^^v  hex  speciem  et  imaginem  Dei 
esse,  tamen  valido  inde  argumento  docebimus  ;  Deum  esse  natura,  qui 
in  forma  et  imagine  Dei  exisleret ;  nisi  Deum  personatum,  et  commen- 
titium,  qui  speciem  quidem  et  <pavraa>a  haberet  veritate  carens,  credere 
et  adorare  malint."  (Observationes  Sacra  in  loe.)  But  it  is  not  true,  as 
some  have  hastily  stated,  that  fxop^rj  signifies  only  the  outward  form  of 
any  thing ;  it  is  used  in  Greek  authors  for  the  essential  form,  or  nature 
itself  of  a  thing,  of  which  examples  may  be  seen  in  Wetstein,  Eisner, 
Rosenmuller,  Schleusner,  and  others ;  and  accordingly  Schleusner  ex- 
plains it  "  per  metonymiam  ;  ipsa  natura  et  essentia  alien  jus  rei,"  and 
adds,  "  sic  legitur  in  N.  T.  Philip,  ii,  6,  ubi  Christus  dicitur  ?v  fjwpp^ 
0ss  UTap^wv  ad  designandam  sublimiorem  ipsius  naturam."  The  Greek 
fathers  also  understood  ju-op^vj  in  the  sense  of  outfia,  and  to  use  the  phrase 
"  being  in  the  form  of  God,"  to  signify  the  "  being  really  and  truly  God.  ' 
Thus  the  term  itself  is  sufficiently  explicit  of  the  doctrine ;  but  the 
context  would  decide  the  matter,  were  the  verbal  criticism  less  decidedly 
in  favour  of  this  interpretation.  "  The  form  of  God"  stands  opposed  to 
*  the  form  of  a  servant."  This,  say  those  critics  who  would  make  the 
'brm  of  God  an  external  appearance  only,  means  "  the  appearance  and 
behaviour  of  a  bondsman  or  slave,  and  not  the  essence  of  such  a  person." 
But  (JouXog,  a  slave,  is  not  in  the  New  Testament  taken  in  the  same 
opprobrious  sense  as  among  us.     St.  Paul  calls  himself  "  the  slave  of 

(9)  "  1.  Forma,  extcrnus,  habitus,  onine  quod  in  oculos  occumt,  imago,  eiim- 
litudo."  {Schleusner  \ 


614  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

Jesus  Christ,"  and  our  translators  have,  therefore,  properly  rendered 
the  word  by  servant,  as  more  exactly  conveying  the  meaning  intended. 
Now  it  is  certain,  that  Christ  was  the  servant  or  minister  both  of  the 
Father  and  of  his  creatures.  He  himself  declares,  that  he  came  not 
"  to  be  ministered  unto,  but  to  minister ;"  and  as  to  be  in  the  form  of  a 
servant  is  not,  therefore,  to  have  the  appearance  of  a  servant,  but  ta  be 
really  a  servant,  so  to  be  in  the  form  of  God  is  to  be  really  God.  This 
is  rendered  still  stronger  by  the  following  clause,  which  is  exegetic  of 
the  preceding,  as  will  appear  from  the  literal  rendering,  the  force  of 
which  is  obscured  by  the  copulative  introduced  into  the  common  version. 
It  is  not,  "  and  took  upon  him  the  form  of  a  servant,  and  was  made  in 
the  likeness  of  men,"  but  "  being  made  in  the  likeness  of  men,"  which 
clearly  denotes  that  he  took  the  form  of  a  servant  by  "  being  made  in 
the  likeness  of  men,"  so  that,  as  Bishop  Pearson  irresistibly  argues, 

"  The  phrase '  in  the  form  of  God,'  not  elsewhere  mentioned,  is  used 
by  the  apostle  with  respect  unto  that  other,  of 'the  form  of  a  servant,' 
exegetically  continued  '  in  the  likeness  of  men  ;'  and  the  respect  of  one 
unto  the  other  is  so  necessary,  that  if  the  form  of  God  be  not  real  and 
essential  as  the  form  of  a  servant,  or  the  likeness  of  man,  there  is  no 
force  in  the  apostle's  words,  nor  Avill  his  argument  be  fit  to  work  any 
great  degree  of  humiliation  upon  the  consideration  of  Christ's  exinani- 
tion.  But  by  the  form  is  certainly  understood  the  true  condition  of  a 
servant,  and  by  the  likeness  is  infallibly  meant  the  real  nature  of  man  : 
nor  doth  the  fashion,  in  which  he  was  found,  destroy,  but  rather  assert 
the  truth  of  his  humanity.  And  therefore,  as  sure  as  Christ  was  really 
and  essentially  man,  of  the  same  nature  with  us,  in  whose  similitude 
he  was  made ;  so  certainly  was  he  also  really  and  essentially  God,  of 
the  same  nature  and  being  with  him,  in  whose  form  he  did  subsist." 
(Discourses  on  the  Creed.) 

The  greatness  of  him  who  "  humbled  himself"  being  thus  laid  down 
by  the  apostle,  he  proceeds  to  state  what,  in  the  process  of  his  humilia- 
tion,  he  waived  of  that  which  was.  due  to  his  greatness.  He  "  thought 
it  not  robbery  to  be  equal  with  God ;  but  made  himself  of  no  reputa- 
tion ;"  or,  as  many  choose  to  render  it,  "  he  emptied  himself."  Whe- 
ther the  clause, "  thought  it  not  robbery,"  be  translated  "  esteemed  it 
not  an  object  to  be  caught  at,  or  eagerly  desired,  to  be  as  God,"  or  did 
not  think  it  a  "usurpation ;"  or,  as  our  translators  have  it,  a  "  robbery1* 
to  be  equal  with  God,  signifies  little ;  for,  after  all  the  criticism  ex- 
pended on  this  unusual  phrase,  that  Christ  had  a  right  to  that  which  he 
might  have  retained,  but  chose  to  waive  when  he  humbled  himself,  is 
sufficiently  established  both  by  the  meaning  of  the  word  and  by  the 
connection  itself.  Some  Socinians  allow  the  common  translation,  and 
their  own  version  is  to  the  same  effect, — he  "  did  not  esteem  it  a  prey," 
which  can  only  mean,  though  they  attempt  to  cloud  the  matter  in  then 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  615 

note,  that  he  did  not  esteem  that  as  his  own  property  to  which  ho  had 
no  right.  (9)  That,  then,  which  he  did  not  account  a.  "prey"  a  seizure 
of  another's  right  or  property,  was  "to  be  equal  with  God."  Whether, 
in  the  phrase  to  iva  irfa  ©sw,  to  be  equal  with  God,  iffa  is  to  be  taken 
adverbially,  and  translated  as,  like  as,  God  ;  or,  by  enallage,  for  the 
singular  adjective  masculine,  and  to  be  rendered  equal  to  God,  has  been 
matter  of  dispute.  The  grammatical  authority  appears  to  predominate 
in  favour  of  the  latter,  (1)  and  it  is  supported  by  several  of  the  fathers 
and  the  ancient  versions  ;  but  here,  again,  we  are  not  left  to  the  niceties 
of  verbal  criticism.  If  taken  in  either  way,  the  sense  is  much  the 
same  :  he  thought  it  not  a  robbery,  or  usurpation,  to  be  equal  with  God, 
or,  as  God,  which,  as  the  sense  determines,  was  an  equality  of  honour 
and  dignity ;  but  made  himself  of  no  reputation.  For  as  the  phrase, 
ilxe  form  of  God,  signifies  his  essential  Divinity,  so  that  of  which  he 
"  emptied "  or  divested  himself  for  the  time  was  something  to  which  he 
had  a  right  consequent  upon  his  Divinity  ;  and  if  to  be  equal  with  God, 
or  to  be  as  God,  was  his  right,  as  a  Divine  person,  it  was  not  any  thing 
which  he  was  essentially  of  which  he  divested  himself,  for  that  were 
impossible  ,  but  something  which,  if  he  had  not  been  God,  it  would  have 
been  a  robbery  and  usurpation  either  to  claim  or  retain.  This,  then, 
can  be  nothing  else  than  the  assumption  of  a  Divine  majesty  and  glory ; 
the  proclamation  of  his  own  rights,  and  the  demand  of  his  creatures' 
praise  and  homage,  the  laying  aside  of  which,  indeed,  is  admirably 
expressed  in  our  translation,  "but  made  himself  of  no  reputation!" 
This  is  also  established  by  the  antithesis  in  the  text.  "  The  form  of  a 
servant"  stands  opposed  to  "  the  form  of  God," — a  real  servant  to  real 
Divinity ;  and  to  be  "  equal"  with  God,  or,  as  God,  in  glory,  honour, 
and  homage,  is  contrasted  with  the  humiliations  of  a  human  state.  "  In 
that  state  he  was  made  flesh,  sent  in  the  likeness  of  sinful  flesh,  subject 
to  the  infirmities  and  miseries  of  this  life ;  in  that  state  he  was  "  made 
of  a  woman,  made  under  the  law,"  and  so  obliged  to  fulfil  the  same ; 
in  that  state  he  was  born,  and  lived  to  manhood  in  a  mean  condition : 
was  "  despised  and  rejected  of  men,  a  man  of  sorrows,  and  acquainted 
with  grief;"  in  that  state,  being  thus  made  man,  he  took  upon  him  "the 
form  of  a  servant."  If  any  man  doubt  how  Christ  emptied  himself,  the 
text  will  satisfy  him, — "  by  taking  the  form  of  a  servant :"  if  any  still 
question  how  he  took  the  form  of  a  servant,  he  hath  the  apostle's  solu- 
tion,— "  by  being  made  in  the  likeness  of  men."  And  being  found  in 
fashion  as  a  man ;  being  already  by  his  exinanition,  in  the  form  of  a 

(9)  "  Non  rapinam,  aut  spolium  alicui,  detractum,  duxit."  (Rosenmuller.)  So 
the  ancient  versions.  "  Non  rapinam  arbitratus  est."  {Vulgate.)  "  Non  rapinam 
hoc  existimavit."   (Syrt'ae.) 

(1)  See  Pearson  on  the  Creed,  Art.  2,  note;  Schleusner,  Erasmus,  and 
Schmidt. 


616  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [I*ART 

servant,  ho  humbled  himself,  becoming  "  obedient  unto  death,  even  the 
death  of  the  cross."  (Bishop  Pearson.)  The  first  stage  of  his  humilia- 
tion was  his  assuming  "  the  form  of  a  servant ;"  the  completion  of  it, 
his  "  obedience  unto  death."  But  what  say  the  Socinians  ?  As  with 
them  to  be  in  the  form  of  God  means  to  be  invested  with  miraculous 
powers,  so  to  empty  or  divest  himself,  was  his  not  exerting  those  powers 
in  order  to  prevent  his  crucifixion.  The  truth,  however,  is,  that  he 
"emptied"  himself,  not  at  his  crucifixion,  but  when  he  took  upon  him 
the  form  of  a  servant,  and  was  made  in  the  likeness  of  men  ;  so  that,  if 
to  divest  or  empty  himself  be  explained  of  laying  down  his  miraculous 
gifts,  he  laid  them  down  before  l^e  became  man,  that  is,  according  to 
them,  before  he  had  any  existence.  There  is  no  alternative,  in  this  and 
many  similar  passages,  between  orthodoxy  and  the  most  glaring  critical 
absurdity. 


CHAPTER  XVI. 

Humanity  of  Ciirist — Hypostatic  Union — Errors  as  to  the 
Person  of  Christ. 

In  the  present  day,  the  controversy  as  to  the  person  of  Christ  is 
almost  wholly  confined  to  the  question  of  his  Divinity  ;  but,  in  the  early 
ages  of  the  Church,  it  was  necessary  to  establish  his  proper  humanity. 
The  denial  of  this  appears  to  have  existed  as  early  as  the  time  of  St. 
John,  who,  in  his  epistles,  excludes  from  the  pale  of  the  Church  all  who 
denied  that  Christ  was  come  in  the  flesh.  As  his  Gospel,  therefore, 
proclaims  the  Godhead,  so  his  epistles  defend  also  the  doctrine  of  his 
humanity. 

The  source  of  this  ancient  error  appears  to  have  been  a  philosophical 
One.  Both  in  the  oriental  and  Greek  schools,  it  was  a  favourite  notion, 
that  whatever  was  joined  to  matter  was  necessarily  contaminated  by  it, 
and  that  the  highest  perfection  of  this  life  was  abstraction  from  material 
things,  and,  in  another,  a  total  and  final  separation  from  the  body. 
This  opinion  was,  also,  the  probable  cause  of  leading  some  persons,  in 
St.  Paul's  time,  to  deny  the  reality  of  a  resurrection,  and  to  explain  it 
figuratively.  But,  however  that  may  be,  it  was  one  of  the  chief  grounds 
of  the  rejection  of  the  proper  humanity  of  Christ  among  the  different 
branches  of  the  Gnostics,  who,  indeed,  erred  as  to  both  natures.  The 
things  which  the  Scriptures  attribute  to  the  human  nature  of  our  Lord 
hey  did  not  deny  ;  but  affirmed  that  they  took  place  in  appearance 
only,  and  they  were,  therefore,  called  Docetce  and  Phantasiasue.  At  a 
later  period,  Eutyches  fell  into  a  similar  error,  by  teaching  that  the 
human  nature  of  Christ  was  absorbed  into  the  Divine,  and  that  his  body 
had  no  real  existence.     These  errors  have  passed  away,  and  dange 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  617 

now  lies  only  on  one  side ;  not,  indeed,  because  men  are  become  less 
liable  or  less  disposed  to  err,  but  because  philosophy, — from  vain  pre- 
tences to  which,  or  a  proud  reliance  upon  it,  almost  all  great  religious 
errors  spring, — has,  in  later  ages,  taken  a  different  character. 

While  these  errors  denied  the  real  existence  of  the  body  of  Christ, 
the  Apolloninarian  heresy  rejected  the  existence  of  a  human  soul  in  our 
Lord,  and  taught  that  the  Godhead  supplied  its  place.  Thus  both  these 
views  denied  to  Christ  a  proper  humanity,  and  both  were,  accordingly, 
condemned  by  the  general  Church. 

Among  those  who  held  the  union  of  two  natures  in  Christ,  the  Divine 
and  human,  which,  in  theological  language  is  called  the  hypostatical,  or 
personal  union,  several  distinctions  were  also  made  which  led  to  a 
diversity  of  opinion.  The  Nestorians  acknowledged  two  persons  in  our 
Lord,  mystically  and  more  closely  united  than  any  human  analogy  can 
explain.  The  Monophysites  contended  for  one  person  and  one  nature, 
the  two  being  supposed  to  be,  in  some  mysterious  manner,  confounded. 
The  Monothehtes  acknowledged  two  natures  and  one  will.  Various 
other  refinements  were,  at  different  times,  propagated ;  but  the  true 
sense  of  Scripture  appears  to  have  been  very  accurately  expressed  by 
the  council  of  Chalcedon,  in  the  fifth  century, — that  in  Christ  there  is 
one  person  ;  in  the  unity  of  person,  two  natures,  the  Divine  and  the 
human  ;  and  that  there  is  no  change,  or  mixture,  or  confusion  of  these 
two  natures,  but  that  each  retains  its  own  distinguishing  properties. 
With  this  agrees  the  Athanasian  Creed,  whatever  be  its  date, — "  Per- 
feet  God  and  perfect  man,  of  a  reasonable  soul,  and  human  flesh  sub- 
sisting — Who  although  he  be  God  and  man,  yet  he  is  not  two  ;  but  one 
Christ :  one,  not  by  conversion  of  the  Godhead  into  flesh ;  but  by 
taking  the  manhood  into  God  ;  one  altogether,  not  by  confusion  of  sub- 
stance,  but  by  unity  of  person  ;  for  as  the  reasonable  soul  and  flesh  is 
one  man,  so  God  and  man  is  one  Christ."  The  Church  of  England, 
by  adopting  this  creed,  has  adopted  its  doctrine  on  the  hypostatical 
union,  and  has  farther  professed  it  in  her  second  article.  "  The  Son, 
which  is  the  Word  of  the  Father,  begotten  from  everlasting  of  the 
Father,  the  very  and  eternal  God,  of  one  substance  with  the  Father, 
took  man's  nature  in  the  womb  of  the  blessed  virgin  of  her  substance , 
so  that  the  two  whole  and  perfect  natures,  that  is  to  say,  the  Godhead 
and  manhood,  were  joined  together  in  one  person,  never  to  be  divided, 
whereof  is  one  Christ,  very  God  and  very  man." 

Whatever  objections  may  be  raised  against  these  views  by  the  mere 
reason  of  man,  unable  to  comprehend  mysteries  so  high,  but  often  bold 
enough  to  impugn  them,  they  certainly  exhibit  the  doctrine  of  the  New 
Testament  on  these  important  subjects,  though  expressed  in  different 
terms.  Nor  are  these  formularies  to  be  charged  with  originating  such 
distinctions,  and  adding  them  to  the  simplicity  of  Scripture,  as  they 


618  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

often  unjustly  are  by  those  who,  either  from  lurking  errors  in  their  own 
minds,  or  from  a  vain  affectation  of  being  independent  of  human  autho- 
rity, are  most  prone  to  question  them.  Such  expositions  of  faith  were 
rendered  necessary  by  the  dangerous  speculations  and  human  refine- 
ments to  which  we  have  above  adverted  ;  and  were  intended  to  be  (what 
they  may  be  easily  proved  from  Scripture  to  be  in  reality)'  summaries  of 
inspired  doctrines  ;  not  new  distinctions,  but  declarations  of  what  had 
been  before  taught  by  the  Holy  Spirit  on  the  subject  of  the  hypostatical 
union  of  natures  in  Christ ;  and  the  accordance  of  these  admirable 
summaries  with  the  Scriptures  themselves  will  be  very  obvious  to  all 
who  yield  to  their  plain  and  unperverted  testimony.  That  Christ  is 
very  God,  has  been  already  proved  from  the  Scriptures,  at  considerable 
length  ;  that  he  was  truly  a  man,  no  one  will  be  found  to  doubt ;  that 
he  is  but  one  person,  is  sufficiently  clear  from  this,  that  no  distinction 
into  two  was  ever  made  by  himself,  or  by  his  apostles,  and  from  ac- 
tions peculiar  to  Godhead  being  sometimes  ascribed  to  him  under  his 
human  appellations ;  and  actions  and  sufferings  peculiar  to  humanity 
being  also  predicated  of  him  under  Divine  titles.  That  in  him  there  is 
no  confusion  of  the  two  natures,  is  evident  from  the  absolute  manner 
in  which  both  his  natures  are  constantly  spoken  of  in  the  Scriptures. 
His  Godhead  was  not  deteriorated  by  uniting  itself  with  a  human 
body,  for  "  he  is  the  true  God  ;"  his  humanity  was  not,  while  on  earth, 
exalted  into  properties  which  made  it  different  in  kind  to  the  humanity 
of  his  creatures ;  for, "  as  the  children  were  partakers  of  flesh  and 
blood,  he  also  took  part  of  the  same."  If  the  Divine  nature  in  him 
had  been  imperfect,  it  would  have  lost  its  essential  character,  for  it  is 
essential  to  Deity  to  be  perfect  and  complete  ;  if  any  of  the  essential 
properties  of  human  nature  had  been  wanting,  he  would  not  have  been 
man ;  if,  as  some  of  the  preceding  notions  implied,  Divine  and  human 
had  been  mixed  and  confounded  in  him,  he  would  have  been  a  com- 
pounded being,  neither  God  nor  man.  Nothing  was  deficient  in  his 
humanity,  nothing  in  his  Divinity,  and  yet  he  is  one  Christ.  This  is 
clearly  the  doctrine  of  the  Scripture,  and  it  is  admirably  expressed  in 
the  creeds'  above  quoted ;  and,  on  that  account,  they  are  entitled  to 
great  respect.  They  embody  the  sentiments  of  some  of  the  greatest 
men  that  ever  lived  in  the  Church,  in  language  weighed  with  the  ut- 
most care  and  accuracy ;  and  they  are  venerable  records  of  the  faith 
of  distant  ages. 

These  two  circumstances,  the  completeness  of  each,  nature,  and  the 
union  of  both  in  one  person,  is  the  only  key  to  the  language  of  the  New 
Testament,  and  so  entirely  explains  and  harmonizes  the  whole  as  to 
afford  the  strongest  proof,  next  to  its  explicit  verbal  statements,  of  the 
doctrine  that  our  Lord  is  at  once  truly  God  and  truly  man.  On  the 
other  hand,  the  impracticability  of  giving  a  consistent  explanation  of  the 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  619 

testimony  of  God  "  concerning  his  Son  Jesus  Christ"  on  all  other  hypo- 
theses, entirely  confutes  them.  In  one  of  two  ways  only  will  it  be 
found,  by  every  one  who  makes  the  trial  honestly,  that  all  the  pas- 
gages  of  holy  writ  respecting  the  person  of  Christ  can  be  explained ; 
either  by  referring  them,  according  to  the  rule  of  the  ancient  fathers,  to 
the  GsoXoyia,  by  which  they  meant  every  thing  that  related  to  the 
Divinity  of  our  Saviour ;  or  to  the  Oixovofjua,  by  which  they  meant  his 
incarnation,  and  every  thing  that  he  did  in  the  flesh  to  procure  the  sal- 
vation  of  mankind.  This  distinction  is  expressed  in  modern  theological 
language,  by  considering  some  things  which  are  spoken  of  Christ,  as 
said  of  his  Divine,  others  of  his  human  nature ;  and  he  who  takes  this 
principle  of  interpretation  along  with  him  will  seldom  find  any  difficulty 
in  apprehending  the  sense  of  the  sacred  writers,  though  the  subjects 
themselves  be  often,  to  human  minds,  inscrutable. 

Does  any  one  ask,  for  instance,  if  Jesus  Christ  was  truly  God,  how 
he  could  be  born  and  die  ?  how  he  could  grow  in  wisdom  and  sta- 
ture ?  how  he  could  be  subject  to  law  ?  be  tempted  ?  stand  in  need  of 
prayer  1  how  his  soul  could  be  "  exceeding  sorrowful  even  unto  death  ?" 
be  "  forsaken  of  his  Father  ?"  purchase  the  Church  with  "  his  own 
blood  ?"  have  "  a  joy  set  before  him  ?"  be  exalted  ?  have  "  all  power 
in  heaven  and  earth"  given  to  him  ?  &c.  The  answer  is,  that  he  was 
also  MAN. 

If,  on  the  other  hand,  it  be  a  matter  of  surprise,  that  a  visible  man 
should  heal  diseases  at  his  will,  and  without  referring  to  any  higher 
authority,  as  he  often  did ;  still  the  winds  and  the  waves ;  know  the 
thoughts  of  men's  hearts;  foresee  his  own  passion  in  all  its  circum- 
stances ;  authoritatively  forgive  sins ;  be  exalted  to  absolute  dominion 
over  every  creature  in  heaven  and  earth ;  be  present  wherever  two  or 
three  are  gathered  in  his  name  ;  be  with  his  disciples  to  the  end  of  the 
world  ;  claim  universal  homage  and  the  bowing  of  the  knee  of  all  crea- 
tures to  his  name  ;  be  associated  with  the  Father  in  solemn  ascrip- 
tions of  glory  and  thanksgiving,  and  bear  even  the  awful  names  of  God, 
names  of  description  and  revelation,  names  which  express  Divine  attri- 
butes : — what  is  the  answer  ?  Can  the  Socinian  scheme,  which  allows 
him  to  be  a  man  only,  produce  a  reply  ?  Can  it  furnish  a  reasonable 
interpretation  of  texts  of  sacred  writ  which  .affirm  all  these  things  ? 
Can  it  suggest  any  solution  which  does  not  imply  that  the  sacred  pen- 
men were  not  only  careless  writers,  but  writers  who,  if  they  had 
studied  to  be  misunderstood,  could  not  more  delusively  have  expressed 
themselves?  The  only  hypothesis,  explanatory  of  all  these  statements, 
is,  that  Chnsl  s  Goo  as  well  as  man,  and  by  this  the  consistency  of 
the  sacred  writers  is  brought  out,  and  a  harmonizing  strain  of  senti- 
ment is  seen  compacting  the  Scriptures  into  one  agreeing  and  mutually 
adjusted  revelation. 


620  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

But  the  union  of  the  two  natures  in  Christ  in  one  hypostasis,  or 
person,  is  equally  essential  to  the  full  exposition  of  the  Scriptures,  as 
the  existence  of  two  distinctively,  the  Divine  and  the  human  ;  and  with- 
out it  many  passages  lose  all  force,  because  they  lose  all  meaning.  In 
what  possible  sense  could  it  be  said  of  the  Word,  that  "  he  was  made 
(or  became)  flesh,"  if  no  such  personal  unity  existed  ?  The  Socinians 
themselves  seem  to  acknowledge  the  force  of  this,  and  therefore  trans- 
late "  and  the  Word  was  flesh,"  affirming  falsely,  as  various  critics 
have  abundantly  shown,  that  the  most  usual  meaning  of  yjvo/xai  is  to  be. 
Without  the  hypostatical  union,  how  could  the  argument  of  our  Lord  be 
supported,  that  the  Messiah  is  both  David's  Son  and  David's  Lord? 
If  this  is  asserted  of  two  persons,  then  the  argument  is  gone ;  if  of 
one,  then  two  natures,  one  which  had  authority  as  Lord,  and  the  other 
capable  of  natural  descent,  were  united  in  one  person.  Allowing  that 
we  have  established  it,  that  the  appellative  "  Son  of  God"  is  the  desig- 
nation of  a  Divine  relation,  but  for  this  personal  union  the  visible  Christ 
could  not  be,  according  to  St.  Peter's  confession,  "  the  Son  of  the  living 
God."  By  this  doctrine  we  also  learn  how  it  was  that  "  the  Church 
of  God"  was  "  purchased  by  his  own  blood."  Even  if  we  concede 
the  genuine  reading  to  be  "  the  Lord,"  this  concession  yields  nothing  to 
the  Socinians,  unless  the  term  Lord  were  a  human  title,  which  has  been 
already  disproved,  and  unless  a  mere  man  could  be  "  Lord  both  of  the 
dead  and  the  living,"  could  wield  universal  sovereignty,  and  be  entitled 
to  universal  homage.  If,  then,  the  title  "  the  Lord"  be  an  appellation 
of  Christ's  superior  nature,  in  no  other  sense  could  it  be  said  that  the 
Church  was  purchased  by  his  own  blood,  than  by  supposing  the  exist- 
ence  of  that  union  which  we  call  personal ;  a  union  which  alone  dis- 
tinguishes the  sufferings  of  Christ  from  that  of  his  martyred  followers, 
gave  to  them  a  merit  which  theirs  had  not,  and  made  "  his  blood" 
capable  of  purchasing  the  salvation  of  the  "  Church."  For,  disallow 
that  union,  and  we  can  see  no  possible  meaning  in  calling  the  blood  of 
Christ  "  the  blood  of  God,"  or,  if  it  please  better,  "  of  the  Lord  ;"  or  in 
what  that  great  peculiarity  consisted  which  made  it  capable  of  pur- 
chasing or  redeeming. 

Dr.  Pye  Smith,  in  his  very  able  work  on  the  person  of  Christ,  has 
rather  inconsiderately  blamed  the  orthodox,  for  "  the  very  serious  offence 
of  sometimes  using  language  which  applies  to  the  Divine  nature  the 
circumstances  and  properties  which  could  only  attach  to  his  humanity," 
as  giving  unhappy  occasion  to  the  objections  and  derisions  of  their 
opponents.  As  he  gives  uo  instances,  he  had  his  eye,  probably,  upon 
some  extreme  cases ;  but  if  he  meant  it  as  a  remark  of  general  applica- 
tion, it  seems  to  have  arisen  from  a  very  mistaken  view,  and  assumes, 
that  the  objections  of  opponents  lie  rather  against  terms  than  against  the 
doctrine  of  Christ's  Divinity  itself. 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL     INSTITUTES.  621 

This  is  so  far  from  being  the  case,  that,  if  the  orthodox  were  to 
attend  to  the  caution  given  by  this  writer  on  this  subject,  they  would  not 
approach  one  step  nearer  to  the  conversion  of  those  who  are  in  this 
fundamental  error,  supporting  it,  as  they  do,  by  perversions  so  manifest, 
and  by  criticisms  so  shameless.  I  am  no  apologist,  however,  of  real 
"  errors  and  faults"  in  theological  language ;  but  the  practice  referred 
to,  so  far  from  being  "  a  serious  offence,"  has  the  authority  of  the 
writers  of  the  New  Testament.  Argumeniatively,  the  distinction 
between  the  Divine  and  human  natures,  according  to  the  rule  before 
given,  must  be  maintained ;  but  when  speaking  cursorily,  and  on  the 
assumption  of  the  unquestionable  truth  of  the  hypostatic  union  of  the 
Divine  and  human  natures, — a  manner  of  speaking,  which,  it  is  hoped, 
all  true  Christians  adopt,  as  arising  from  their  settled  convictions  on 
this  point, — those  very  terms,  so  common  among  the  orthodox,  and  so 
objectionable  to  those  who  "  deny  the  Lord  that  bought  them,"  must  be 
maintained  in  spite  of  "  derision,"  or  the  language  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment must  be  dropped,  or  at  least  be  made  very  select,  if  this  danger- 
ous,  and  in  the  result,  this  betraying  courtesy  be  adopted.  For  what 
does  Dr.  i\  Smith  gain,  when  cautioning  the  believer  against  the  use 
of  the  phrase  "  the  blood  of  God,"  by  reminding  him  that  there  is 
reason  to  prefer  the  reading,  "  the  Church  of  the  Lord,  which  he  hath 
purchased  by  his  own  blood  ?"  The  orthodox  contend,  that  the  appellation 
"  the  Lord,"  when  applied  to  our  Saviour,  is  his  title  as  God,  and  the 
heterodox  know,  also,  that  the  "  blood  of  the  Lord"  is  a  phrase  with  us 
entirely  equivalent  to  "  the  blood  of  God."  They  know,  too,  that  we 
neither  believe  that  "  God"  nor  "  the  Lord"  could  die ;  but  in  using 
the  established  phrase,  the  all-important  doctrine  of  the  existence  of 
such  a  union  between  the  two  natures  of  our  Lord  as  to  make 
the  blood  which  he  shed  more  than  the  blood  of  a  mere  man,  more 
than  the  blood  of  his  mere  humanity  itself,  is  maintained  and  exhi- 
bited ;  and  while  we  allow  that  God  could  not  die,  yet  that  there 
is  a  most  important  sense  in  which  the  blood  of  Christ  was  "  the  blood 
of  God." 

We  do  not  attempt  to  explain  this  mystery,  but  we  find  it  on  record  ; 
and,  in  point  of  fact,  that  careful  appropriation  of  the  properties  of  the 
two  natures  to  each  respectively,  which  Dr.  Pye  Smith  recommends,  is 
not  very  frequent  in  the  New  Testament,  and  for  this  obvious  reason, 
that  the  question  of  our  Lord's  Divinity  is  more  generally  introduced  as 
an  indisputed  principle,  than  argued  upon.  It  is  true,  that  the  Apostle 
Paul  lays  it  down,  that  our  Lord  was  of  the  seed  of  David,  "  according 
to  the  flesh,"  and  "  the  Son  of  God,  according  to  the  Spirit  of  holi- 
ness." Here  is  an  instance  of  the  distinction  ;  but  generally  this  is  not 
observed  by  the  apostles,  because  the  equally  fundamental  doctrine  was 
always  present  to  them,  that  the  same  person  who  was  flesh  was  also 


G22  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

truly  God.  Hence  they  scruple  not  to  say,  that  "  the  Lord  of  glory 
was  crucified,"  that  "  the  Prince  of  life  was  killed,"  and  that  he  who 
was  "in  the  form  of  God,"  became  "obedient  unto  death,  even  the 
death  of  the  cross." 

We  return,  from  this  digression,  to  notice  a  few  other  passages,  the 
meaning  of  which  can  only  be  opened  by  the  doctrine  of  the  personal 
union  of  the  Divine  and  human  natures  in  Christ.  "  For  in  him  dwell- 
eth  all  the  fulness  of  the  Godhead  bodily,"  Col.  ii,  9 ;  not  by  a  type 
and  figure,  but,  as  the  word  cu/xaTLKug  signifies  really  and  substantially, 
and  for  the  full  exposition,  we  must  add,  by  personal  union  ;  for  we 
have  no  other  idea  by  which  to  explain  an  expression  never  used  to 
signify  the  inhabitation  of  good  men  by  God,  and  which  is  here  applied 
to  Christ  in  a  way  of  eminence  and  peculiarity.  (2) 

"  Who  being  the  brightness  of  his  glory,  and  the  express  image  of 
his  person,  and  upholding  all  things  by  the  word  of  his  power,  when  he 
had  by  himself  purged  our  sins,  sat  down  on  the  right  hand  of  the 
Majesty  on  high,"  Heb.  i,  3.  To  this  passage,  also,  the  hypostatical 
union  is  the  only  key.  Of  whom  does  the  apostle  speak,  when  he 
says,  "  when  he  had  by  himself  purged  our  sins,"  but  of  Ifim  who  is 
"  the  brightness  of  his  glory,  and  the  express  image  of  his  person  ?" 
He,  by  himself,  "  purged  our  sins  ;"  yet  this  was  done  by  the  shedding 
of  his  blood.  In  that  higher  nature,  however,  he  could  not  suffer  death  ; 
and  nothing  could  make  the  sufferings  of  his  humanity  a  purification  of 
sins  by  himself,  but  such  a  union  as  should  constitute  one  person  : — 
for,  unless  this  be  allowed,  either  the  characters  of  Divinity  in  the  pre- 
ceding verses  are  characters,  of  a  merely  human  being  ;  or  else  that 
higher  nature  was  capable  of  suffering  death  ;  or,  if  not,  the  purification 
was  not  made  by  himself,  which  yet  the  text  affirms. 

In  fine,  all  passages  which  (not  to  mention  many  others)  come 
under  the  following  classes  have  their  true  interpretation  thus  laid 
open,  and  are  generally  utterly  unmeaning  on  any  other  hypothesis. 

1.  Those  which,  like  some  of  the  foregoing,  speak  of  the  efficacy  of 
the  sufferings  of  Christ  for  the  remission  of  sins.  In  this  class  the  two 
following  may  be  given  as  examples.  Heb.  ii,  14,  "Forasmuch,  then, 
as  the  children  are  partakers  of  flesh  and  blood,  he  also  himself  likewise 
took  part  of  the  same ;  that  through  death  he  might  destroy  him  that 
had  the  power  of  death,"  &c.  Here  the  efficacy  of  the  death  of  Christ 
is  explicitly  stated ;  but  as  explicitly  is  it  said  to  be  the  death  of  one 
who  partook  of  flesh  and  blood,  or  who  assumed  human  nature.  The 
power  of  deliverance  is  ascribed  to  him  who  thus  invested  himself  with 
a  nature  below  that  of  his  own  original  nature ;  but  in  that  lower  nature 

(2)  "  Y,wpaTtKMf,  h.  e.  vere,  perfectissime,  non  typice,  et  umbraliter,  sicut  in  V. 
T.  Dous  se  manifcstavit.  Est  autem  inhabitatio  ilia  et  unio  personalis,  et  singu- 
larissima."    (Glastiua.) 


SECOND]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  623 

he  dies,  and  by  that  death  he  delivers  those  who  had  been  all  their 
lifetime  subject  to  bondage.  The  second  is  Colossians  i,  14,  &c,  "  In 
whom  we  have  redemption  through  his  blood,  even  the  forgiveness  of 
sins,  who  is  the  image  of  the  invisible  God,"  &c.  In  this  passage,  the 
lofty  description  which  is  given  of  the  person  of  Christ  stands  in  imme- 
diate connection  with  the  mention  of  the  efficacy  of  "  his  blood,"  and 
is  to  be  considered  as  the  reason  why,  through  that  blood,  redemption 
and  remission  of  sins  became  attainable.  Thus  "  without  shedding  of 
blood  there  could  be  no  remission  ;"  but  the  blood  of  Jesus  only  is  thus 
efficacious,  who  is  "  the  image  of  the  invisible  God,"  the  "  Creator"  of 
all  things.  His  blood  it  could  not  be  but  for  the  hypostatical  union ; 
and  it  is  equally  true,  that  but  for  that  he  could  have  had  no  blood  to 
shed  ;  because,  as  "  the  image  of  the  invisible  God,"  that  is,  God's  equal, 
or  God  himself,  his  nature  was  incapable  of  death. 

"2.  In  the  second  class  are  all  those  passages  which  argue  from  the 
compassion  which  our  Lord  manifested  in  his  humiliation,  and  his  own 
experience  of  sufferings,  to  the  exercise  of  confidence  in  him  by  his 
people  in  dangers  and  afflictive  circumstances.  Of  these  the  following 
may  be  given  fur  the  sake  of  illustration.  Heb.  iv,  15,  16,  "  For  we 
have  not  a  high  priest  which  cannot  be  touched  with  the  feeling  of  our 
infirmities;  but  was  in  all  points  tempted  like  as  we  are,  yet  without 
sin.  Let  us,  therefore,  come  boldly  unto  the  throne  of  grace,  that  we 
may  obtain  mercy,  and  find  grace  to  help  in  time  of  need."  Several 
similar  passages  occur  in  the  early  part  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews, 
and  the  argument  of  them  all  is  precisely  the  same.  The  humiliation 
of  our  Lord,  and  his  acquaintance  with  human  woes,  may  assure  us  of 
his  sympathy  ;  but  sympathy  is  not  help.  He  is  represented,  therefore, 
as  the  source  of  "succour"  as  the  "  Author  of salvation"  "the  Captain 
of  our  salvation"  in  consequence  of  the  sufferings  he  endured  ;  and  to 
him  all  his  people  are  directed  to  fly  for  aid  in  prayer,  and  by  entire 
trust  in  his  power,  grace,  and  presence,  to  assure  themselves  that  timely 
succour  and  final  salvation  shall  be  bestowed  upon  them  by  him.  Now 
here,  also,  it  is  clear,  that  the  sufferer  and  the  Saviour  are  the  same 
person.  The  man  might  suffer ;  but  sufferings  could  not  enable  the  man 
to  save ;  they  could  give  no  new  qualification  to  human  nature,  nor 
bestow  upon  that  nature  any  new  right.  But,  beside  the  nature  which 
suffered,  and  learned  the  bitterness  of  human  woes  by  experience,  there 
is  a  nature  which  can  know  the  sufferings  of  all  others,  in  all  places,  at 
all  times ;  which  can  also  ascertain  the  "  time  of  need"  with  exactness, 
and  the  "grace"  suitable  to  it ;  which  can  effectually  "  help"  and  sus- 
tain the  sorrows  of  the  very  heart,a  power  peculiar  to  Divinity,and  finally 
bestow  "  eternal  salvation."  This  must  be  Divine  ;  but  it  is  one  in  per- 
sonal union  with  that  which  suffered  and  was  taught  sympathy,  and  it 
is  this  union  constitutes  that  "  Great  High  Priest"  of  our  profession, 


624  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

that  "  merciful  and  faithful  High  Priest,"  who  is  able  "  to  succour  us 
when  we  are  tempted."  Thus,  as  it  has  been  well  observed  on  this 
subject,  "  It  is  by  the  union  of  two  natures  in  one  person  that  Christ  is 
qualified  to  be  the  Saviour  of  the  world.  He  became  man,  that,  with 
the  greatest  possible  advantage  to  those  whom  he  was  sent  to  instruct, 
he  might  teach  them  the  nature  and  the  will  of  God  ;  that  his  life  might 
be  their  example  ;  that  by  being  once  compassed  with  the  infirmities  of 
human  nature,  he  might  give  them  assurance  of  his  fellow  feeling  ;  *hat 
by  suffering  on  the  cross  he  might  make  atonement  for  their  sins  ;  and 
that  in  his  reward  they  might  behold  the  earnest  and  the  pattern  of 
theirs. 

"But  had  Jesus  been  only  man,  or  had  he  been  one  of  the  spirits 
that  surround  the  throne  of  God,  he  could  not  have  accomplished  the 
work  which  he  undertook  :  for  the  whole  obedience  of  every  creature 
being  due  to  the  Creator,  no  part  of  that  obedience  can  be  placed  to  the 
account  of  other  creatures,  so  as  to  supply  the  defects  of  their  service, 
or  to  rescue  them  from  the  punishment  which  they  deserve.  The 
Scriptures,  therefore,  reveal,  that  he  who  appeared  upon  earth  as  man, 
is  also  God,  and  as  God,  was  mighty  to  save ;  and  by  this  revelation 
they  teach  us,  that  the  merit  of  our  Lord's  obedience,  and  the  efficacy 
of  his  interposition,  depend  upon  the  hypostatical  union. 

■  All  modern  sects  of  Christians  agree  in  admitting  that  the  greatest 
benefits  arise  to  us  from  the  Saviour  of  the  world  being  man ;  but  the 
Arians  and  Socinians  contend  earnestly,  that  his  sufferings  do  not  derive 
any  value  from  his  being  God ;  and  their  reasoning  is  specious.  You 
say,  they  argue,  that  Jesus  Christ,  who  suffered  for  the  sins  of  men,  is 
both  God  and  man.  You  must  either  say  that  God  suffered,  or  that  he 
did  not  suffer :  if  you  say  that  God  suffered,  you  do  indeed  affix  an 
infinite  value  to  the  sufferings ;  but  you  affirm  that  the  Godhead  is 
capable  of  suffering,  which  is  both  impious  and  absurd  :  if  you  say  that 
God  did  not  suffer,  then,  although  the  person  that  suffered  had  both  a 
Divine  and  a  human  nature,  the  sufferings  were  merely  those  of  a  man, 
for,  according  to  your  own  system,  the  two  natures  are  distinct,  and 
the  Divine  is  impassible.       « 

■  In  answer  to  this  method  of  arguing,  we  may  admit  that  the  Godhead 
cannot  suffer,  and  we  do  not  pretend  to  explain  the  kind  of  support  which 
the  human  nature  derived,  under  its  sufferings,  from  the  Divine,  or  the 
manner  in  which  the  two  were  united.  But  from  the  uniform  language 
of  Scripture,  which  magnifies  the  love  of  God  in  giving  his  only-begot- 
ten Son,  which  speaks  in  the  highest  terms  of  the  preciousness  of  the 
blood  of  Christ,  which  represents  him  as  coming,  in  the  body  that  was 
prepared  for  him,  to  do  that  which  sacrifice  and  burnt  offering  could  not 
do  :  from  all  this  we  infer  that  there  was  a  value,  a  merit,  in  the  suffer- 
ings of  this  person,  superior  to  that  which  belonged  to  the  sufferings  of 


8ECOND.J  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  625 

any  other  :  and  as  the  same  Scriptures  intimate,  in  numberless  places, 
the  strictest  union  between  the  Divine  and  human  nature  of  Christ,  by 
applying  to  him  promiscuously  the  actions  which  belong  to  each  nature, 
we  hold  that  it  is  impossible  for  U3  to  separate  in  our  imagination,  this 
peculiar  value  which  they  affix  to  his  sufferings  from  the  peculiar  dig- 
nity of  his  person. 

"The  hypostatical  union,  then,  is  the  corner  stone  of  our  religion-.. 
We  are  too  much  accustomed,  in  all  our  researches,  to  perceive  that 
things  are  united,  without  our  being  able  to  investigate  the  bond  which 
unites  them,  to  feel  any  degree  of  surprise  that  we  cannot  answer  all.the 
questions  which  ingenious  men  have  proposed  upon  this  subject ;  but  we 
can  clearly  discern,  in  those  purposes  of  the  incarnation  of  the  Son  of 
God  which  the  Scriptures  declare,  the  reason  why  they  have  dwelt  so 
largely  upon  his  Divinity ;  and  if  we  are  careful  to  take  into  our  view 
the  whole  of  that  description  which  they  give  of  the  person  by  whom 
the  remedy  in  the  Gospel  was  brought ;  if,  in  our  speculations  concern- 
ing him,  we  neither  lose  sight  of  the  two  parts  which  are  clearly  revealed, 
nor  forget,  what  we  cannot  comprehend,  that  union  between  the  two 
parts  which  is  necessarily  implied  in  the  revelation  of  them,  we  shall 
perceive,  in  the  character  of  the  Messiah,  a  completeness  and  a 
suitableness  to  the  design  of  his  coming,  which  of  themselves  create  a 
strong  presumption  that  we  have  rightly  interpreted  the  Scriptures." 
(Dr.  Hill.) 

On  this  evidence  from  the  Holy  Scriptures  the  doctrine  of  the  Divi- 
nity of  our  blessed  Saviour  rests.  Into  the  argument  from  antiquity  my 
limits  will  not  allow  me  to  enter.  If  the  great  "  falling  away,"  predicted 
by  St.  Paul,  had  involved,  generally,  this  high  doctrine ;  if  both  the 
Latin  and  Greek  Churches  had  wholly  departed  from  the  faith,  instead 
of  having  united,  without  intermission,  to  say,  "  Thou  art  the  King  of 
glory,  O  Christ,"  "Thou  art  the  everlasting  Son  of  the  Father,"  the  truth 
of  God  would  not  have  been  made  of  "none  effect."  God  would  still 
have  been  true,  though  every  man,  from  the  age  of  inspiration,  had 
become  "  a  liar."  The  Socinians  have,  of  late  years,  shown  great 
anxiety  to  obtain  some  suffrages  from  antiquity  in  their  favour,  and  have 
collected  every  instance  possible  of  early  departure  from  the  faith. 
They  might,  indeed,  have  found  heretical  pravity  and  its  adherents, 
without  travelling  out  of  the  New  Testament ;  men  not  only  near  the 
apostolic  age,  but  in  the  very  days  of  the  apostles,  who  rejected  the 
resurrection,  who  consented  not  "  to  wholesome  doctrine,"  who  made 
"  shipwreck  of  faith,"  as  well  as  of  a  good  conscience,  who  denied  "  the 
only  Lord  God,  and  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,"  "the  Lord  that  bought 
them."  This  kind  of  antiquity  is,  in  truth,  in  their  favour ;  and,  as 
human  nature  is  substantially  the  same  in  all  ages,  there  is  as  much 
reason  to  expect  errors  in  one  age  as  another ;  but  that  any  body  of 

Vol.  I.  40 


/ 


626  THEOLOGICAL   INSTITUTES.  [PART 

Christians,  in  any  sense  entitled  to  be  considered  as  an  acknowledged 
branch  of  the  Church  of  Christ,  can  be  found,  in  primitive  times,  to  give 
any  sanction  to  their  opinions  and  interpretations  of  Scripture,  they  have 
failed  to  establish.  For  full  information  on  the  subject  of  the  opinions 
of  the  primitive  Churches,  and  a  full  refutation  of  all  the  pretences 
which  Arians  and  Socinians,  in  these  later  times,  have  made  to  be,  in 
part,  supported  by  primitive  authority,  the  works  of  Bishop  Bull,  Dr. 
Waterland,  and  Bishop  Horsley,  (3)  must  be  consulted  ;  and  the  result 
will  show,  that  in  the  interpretation  of  the  Scriptures  given  above,  we 
are  supported  by  the  successive  and  according  testimonies  of  all  that  is 
truly  authoritative  in  those  illustrious  ages  which  furnished  so  many 
imperishable  writings  for  the  edification  of  the  future  Church,  and  so 
many  martyrs  and  confessors  of  "  the  truth  as  it  is  in  Jesus." 

Among  the  numerous  errors,  with  respect  to  the  person  of  our  Lord, 
which  formerly  sprung  up  in  the  Church,  and  were  opposed,  with  an 
ever  watchful  zeal,  by  its  authorities,  three  only  can  be  said  to  have 
"■much  influence  in  the  present  day,  Arianism,  Sabellianism,  and  Socini- 
anism.  In  our  own  country,  the  two  former  are  almost  entirely  merged 
in  the  last,  whose  characteristic  is  the  tenet  of  the  simple  humanity  of 
Christ.  Arius,  who  gave  his  name  to  the  first,  seems  to  have  wrought 
some  of  the  floating  errors  of  previous  times  into  a  kind  of  system, 
which,  however,  underwent  various  modifications  among  his  followers. 
The  distinguishing  tenet  of  this  system  was,  that  Christ  was  the  first 
and  most  exalted  of  creatures ;  that  he  was  produced  in  a  peculiar 
manner,  and  endowed  with  great  perfections ;  that  by  him  God  made 
the  world  ;  that  he  alone  proceeded  immediately  from  God,  while  other 
things  were  produced  mediately  by  him,  and  that  all  things  were  put 
under  his  administration.  The  semi-Arians  divided  from  the  Arians, 
but  still  differed  from  the  orthodox,  in  refusing  to  admit  that  the  Son 
was  homoousios,  or  of  the  same  substance  with  the  Father ;  but  acknow- 
ledged him  to  be  liomoiousios,  of  a  like  substance  with  the  Father.  It 
was  only,  however,  in  appearance  that  they  came  nearer  to  the  truth 
than  the  Arians  themselves,  for  they  contended  that  this  likeness  to  the 
Father  in  essence  was  not  by  nature,  but  by  peculiar  privilege.  In 
their  system  Christ,  therefore,  was  but  a  creature.  A  still  farther  refine- 
ment on  this  doctrine  was,  in  this  country,  advocated  by  Dr.  Samuel 
Clarke,  which  Dr.  Waterland,  his  great  and  illustrious  opponent,  showed, 
notwithstanding  the  orthodox  terms  employed,  still  implied  that  Christ 
was  a  created  being,  unless  an  evident  absurdity  were  admitted.  (4) 

(3)  See  also  Wilson's  Illustration  of  the  Method  of  explaining  the  New  Testa- 
ment by  the  early  Opinions  of  Jews  and  Christians  concerning  Christ ;  and  Dr. 
Jamieson's  Vindication,  &c. 

(4)  Dr.  Samuel  Clarke's  hypothesis  was,  that  there  is  one  Supreme  Being, 
who  is  the  Father,  and  two  subordinate,  derived,  and  dependent  beings.     But  ho 


fi 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL   INSTITUTES.  627       /         * 

The  SabeUian  doctrine  stands  equally  opposed  to  trinitarianism  and 
to  the  Arian  system.  It  asserts  the  Divinity  of  the  Son  and  the  Spirit 
against  the  latter,  and  denies  the  personality  of  both,  in  opposition  to  the  *  uiK^j^ 
former.  Sabellius  taught  that  the  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost,  are-i  £>*C 
only  denominations  of  one  hypostasis  ;  in  other  words,  that  there  is  but 
one  person  in  the  Godhead,  and  that  the  Son  or  Word  are  virtues,  ema- 
nations, or  functions  only  :  that,  under  the  Old  Testament  God  delivered 
the  law  as  Father  ;  under  the  New,  dwelt  among  men,  or  was  incar- 
nate, as  the  Son ;  and  descended  on  the  apostles  as  the  Spirit.  Be- 
cause their  scheme,  by  denying  a  real  Sonship,  obliged  them  to  acknow- 
ledge that  it  was  the  Father  who  suffered  for  the  sins  of  men,  the  Sa- 
bellians  were  often,  in  the  early  ages,  called  Patripassians. 

On  the  refutation  of  these  errors  it  is  not  necessary  to  dwell,  both 
because  they  have  now  little  influence,  and  chiefly  because  both  are 
involved  in  the  Socinian  question,  and  are  decided  by  the  establishment 
of  the  Scriptural  doctrine  of  a  trinity  of  Divine  persons  in  the  unity  of 
the  Godhead.  If  Jesus  Christ  be  the  Divine  Son  of  God ;  if  he  was 
"  sent"  from  God,  and  "  returned"  to  God  ;  if  he  distinguished  himself 
from  the  Father  both  in  his  Divine  and  human  nature,  saying,  as  to  the 
former,  "  I  and  my  Father  are  one,"  and  as  to  the  latter, "  My  Father  is 
greater  than  I ;"  if  there  be  any  meaning  at  all  in  his  declaration, 
"  that  no  man  knowcth  the  Son  but  the  Father,  and  no  man  knoweth 
the  Father  but  the  Son,"  words  which  cannot,  by  any  possibility,  be 
spoken  of  an  official  distinction,  or  of  an  emanation  or  operation ;  then 
all  these  passages  prove  a  real  personality,  and  are  incapable  of  being 
explained  by  a  modal  one.  This  is  the  answer  to  the  Sabellian  opinion  ; 
and  as  to  the  Arian  hypothesis,  it  falls,  with  Socinianism,  before  that 
series  of  proofs  which  has  already  been  adduced  from  Holy  Writ,  to 
establish  the  eternity,  consubstantiality,  coequality,  and,  consequently, 
the  proper  Divinity  of  our  Redeemer ;  and,  perhaps,  the  true  reason 
why  not  even  the  semi-Arianism,  argued  with  so  much  subtlety  by  Dr. 
Samuel  Clarke,  has  been  able  to  retain  any  influence  among  us,  is  less 
to  be  attributed  to  the  able  and  learned  writings  of  Dr.  Waterland  and 
others,  who  chased  the  error  through  all  its  changeful  transformations, 
than  to  the  manifest  impossibility  of  conceiving  of  a  being  which  is 
neither  truly  God  nor  a  creature ;  and  the  total  absence  of  all  counte- 
nance in  the  Scriptures,  however  tortured,  in  favour  of  this  opinion. 
Socinianism  assumes  a  plausibility  in  some  of  its  aspects,  because  Christ 

objected  to  call  Christ  a  creature,  thinking  him  something  between  a  created  and 
a  self-existent  nature.  Dr.  C.  appealed  to  the  fathers ;  and  Petavius,  a  learned 
Jesuit,  in  his  Dogmata  Theologica,  had  previously  endeavoured  to  prove  that  the 
ante-Nicene  fathers  leaned  to  Arianism.  Bishop  Bull,  in  his  great  work  on  this 
subject,  and  Dr.  Waterland  may  be  considered  as  having  fully  put  that  question 
to  rest  in  opposition  to  both. 


628  THEOLOGICAL   INSTITUTES.  fPART 

was  really  a  man  ;  but  semi-Arianism  is  a  mere  hypothesis,  which  can 
scarcely  find  a  text  of  Scripture  to  pervert. 


CHAPTER  XVII. 

The  Personality  and  Deity  of  the  Holy  Ghost. 

The  discussion  of  this  great  point  of  Christian  doctrine  may  be 
included  in  much  narrower  limits  than  those  I  have  assigned  to  the 
Divinity  of  Christ,  so  many  of  the  principles  on  which  it  rests  having 
been  closely  considered,  and  because  the  Deity  of  the  Spirit,  in  several 
instances,  inevitably  follows  from  that  of  the  Son.  As  the  object  of 
this  work  is  to  educe  the  doctrine  of  the  sacred  Scriptures  on  all  the 
leading  articles  of  faith,  it  will,  however,  be  necessary  to  show  the  evi- 
dence which  is  there  given  to  the  two  propositions  in  the  title  of  the 
chapter  : — that  the  Holy  Ghost  (from  the  Saxon  word  Gast,  a  Spirit,) 
is  a  person  ;  and  that  he  is  God. 

As  to  the  manner  of  his  being,  the  orthodox  doctrine  is,  that  as  Christ 
is  God  by  an  eternal  filiation,  so  the  Spirit  is  God  by  procession  from 
the  Father  and  the  Son.  "  And  I  believe  in  the  Holy  Ghost,  the  Lord 
and  giver  of  life,  who  proceedeth  from  the  Father  and  the  Son,  who, 
with  the  Father  and  Son  together,  is  worshipped  and  glorified."  {Nicene 
Creed.)  "The  Holy  Ghost  is  of  the  Father  and  of  the  Son,  neither 
made,  nor  created,  nor  begotten,  but  proceeding. ,"  (Athanasian  Creed.) 
"  The  Holy  Ghost,  proceeding  from  the  Father  and  the  Son,  is  of  one 
substance,  majesty,  and  glory,  with  the  Father  and  the  Son,  very  and 
eternal  God."  (Articles  of  the  English  Church.)  The  Latin  Church 
introduced  the  term  spiration,  from  spiro,  to  breathe,  to  denote  the  man- 
ner of  this  procession ;  on  which  Dr.  Owen  remarks,  "  as  the  vital  breath 
of  a  man  has  a  continual  emanation  from  him,  and  yet  is  never  sepa- 
rated utterly  from  his  person,  or  forsaketh  him,  so  doth  the  Spirit  of  the 
Father  and  the  Son  proceed  from  them  by  a  continual  Divine  emana- 
tion, still  abiding  one  with  them."  On  this  refined  view  little  can  be 
said  which  has  obvious  Scriptural  authority ;  and  yet  the  very  term  by 
which  the  third  person  in  the  trinity  is  designated  wind  or  breath  may, 
as  to  the  third  person,  be  designed,  like  the  term  Son  applied  to  the 
second,  to  convey,  though  imperfectly,  some  intimation  of  that  manner 
of  being  by  which  both  are  distinguished  from  each  other,  and  from  the 
Father  ;  and  it  was  a  remarkable  action  of  our  Lord,  and  one  certainly 
which  does  not  discountenance  this  idea,  that  when  he  imparted  the 
Holy  Ghost  to  his  disciples,  "  he  breathkd  on  them,  and  saith  unto 
them,  Receive  ye  the  Holy  Ghost,"  John  xx,  22.  (5) 

(5)  "  The  Father  hnth  relation  to  the  Son,  as  the  Father  of  the  Son  ;  the  Son 
to  the  Father,  as  the  Son  of  the  Father ;  and  the  Holy  Ghost  being  the  spirit,  or 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL   INSTITUTES.  G29 

But  whatever  we  may  think  as  to  the  doctrine  of  "  spiration"  the 
prockssion  of'  the  Holy  Ghost  rests  on  direct  Scriptural  authority,  and 
is  thus  stated  by  Bishop  Pearson  : — 

"  Now  this  procession  of  the  Spirit,  in  reference  to  the  Father,  is 
delivered  expressly,  in  relation  to  the  Son,  and  is  contained  virtually  in 
the  Scriptures.  First,  it  is  expressly  said,  that  the  Holy  Ghost  pro- 
cecdeth  from  the  Father,  as  our  Saviour  testifieth, '  When  the  Comforter 
is  come,  whom  I  will  send  unto  you  from  the  Father,  even  the  Spirit 
of  truth,  which  proceedeth  from  the  Father,  he  shall  testify  of  me,' 
John  xv,  26.  And  this  is  also  evident  from  what  hath  been  already 
asserted  :  for  being  the  Father  and  the  Spirit  are  the  same  God,  and 
being  so  the  same  in  the  unity  of  the  nature  of  God,  are  yet  distinct  in 
the  personality,  one  of  them  must  have  the  same  nature  from  the  other  ; 
and  because  the  Father  hath  been  already  shown  to  have  it  from  none, 
it  followeth  that  the  Spirit  hath  it  from  him. 

"  Secondly,  though  it  be  not  expressly  spoken  in  the  Scripture,  that 
the  Holy  Ghost  proceedeth  from  the  Father  and  Son,  yet  the  substance 
of  the  same  truth  is  virtually  contained  there ;  because  those  very  ex- 
pressions, which  are  spoken  of  the  Holy  Spirit  in  relation  to  the  Father, 
for  that  reason  because  he  proceedeth  from  the  Father,  are  also  spoken 
of  the  same  Spirit  in  relation  to  the  Son  ;  and  therefore  there  must  be 
the  same  reason  presupposed  in  reference  to  the  Son,  which  is  express- 
ed in  reference  to  the  Father.  Because  the  Spirit  proceedeth  from  the 
Father,  therefore  it  is  called  the  Spirit  of  God  and  the  Spirit  of  the 
Father.  '  It  is  not  ye  that  speak,  but  the  Spirit  of  your  Father  which 
speaketh  in  you,'  Matt,  x,  20.  For  by  the  language  of  the  apostle,  the 
Spirit  of  God  is  the  Spirit  which  is  of  God,  saying,  'The  things  of  God 
knoweth  rto  man  but  the  Spirit  of  God.  And  we  have  received  not  the 
spirit  of  the  world,  but  the  Spirit  which  is  of  God,'  1  Cor.  ii,  11,  12. 
Now  the  same  Spirit  is  also  called  the  Spirit  of  the  Son  ;  for  '  because 
we  arc  sons,  God  hath  sent  forth  the  Spirit  of  his  Son  into  our  hearts,' 
Gal.  iv,  6  :  the  Spirit  of  Christ;  'Now  if  any  man  have  not  the  Spirit 
of  Christ,  he  is  none  of  his,'  Rom.  viii,  9  ;  '  even  the  Spirit  of  Christ 
which  was  in  the  prophets,'  1  Peter  i,  11 ;  the  Spirit  of  Jesus  Christ,  as 
!he  apostle  speaks,  '  I  know  that  this  shall  turn  to  ray  salvation,  through 
your  prayer,  and  the  supply  of  the  Spirit  of  Jesus  Christ,'  Phil,  i,  19. 
If  then  the  Holy  Ghost  be  called  the  Spirit  of  the  Father,  because  he 
proceedeth  from  the  Father,  it  followeth  that,  being  called  also  the  Spi- 
rit of  the  Son,  he  proceedeth  also  from  the  Son. 

"  Again :  because  the  Holy  Ghost  proceedeth  from  the  Father,  he  is 
therefore  sent  by  the  Father,  as  from  him  who  halh  by  the  original  com- 

nreuth  of  the  Father  and  the  Son,  to  both."  (Lawsorts  Tkeo.  Pol.)  But  though 
breath  or  wind  is  the  radical  signification  of  Tzvcvfia,  as  also  of  spiritus,  yet,  pro- 
bably from  its  sacredncss,  it  is  but  rarely  used  in  that  sense  in  the  New  Testament. 


630  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

munication,  a  right  of  mission ;  as  « the  Comforter,  which  is  the  Holy- 
Ghost,  whom  the  Father  will  send,'  John  xiv,  26.  But  the  same  Spirit 
which  is  sent  by  the  Father  is  also  sent  Dy  the  Son,  as  he  saith,  <  When 
the  Comforter  is  come,  whom  I  will  send  unto  you.'  Therefore  the 
Son  hath  the  same  right  of  mission  with  the  Father,  and  consequently 
must  be  acknowledged  to  have  communicated  the  same  essence.  The 
Father  is  never  sent  by  the  Son,  because  he  received  not  the  Godhead 
from  him  ;  but  the  Father  sendeth  the  Son,  because  he  communicated 
the  Godhead  to  him  :  in  the  same  manner,  neither  the  Father  nor  the 
Son  is  ever  sent  by  the  Holy  Spirit ;  because  neither  of  them  received 
the  Divine  nature  from  the  Spirit :  but  both  the  Father  and  the  Son 
sendeth  the  Holy  Ghost,  because  the  Divine  nature,  common  to  both 
the  Father  and  the  Son,  was  communicated  by  them  both  to  the  Holy 
Ghost.  As  therefore  the  Scriptures  declare  expressly,  that  the  Spirit 
proceedeth  from  the  Father ;  so  do  they  also  virtually  teach  that  he 
proceedeth  from  the  Son."  (Discourses  on  the  Creed.) 

In  opposition  to  the  doctrine  of  the  personality  and  Deity  of  the  Spirit, 
stands  the  Socinian  hypothesis,  which  I  state  before  the  evidence  from 
Scripture  is  adduced,  that  it  may  be  seen,  upon  examination  of  inspired 
testimony,  how  far  it  is  supported  by  that  authority.  Arius  regarded 
the  Spirit  not  only  as  a  creature,  but  as  created  by  Christ,  icna/ia  una. 
HdTog,  the  creature  of  a  creature.  Some  time  afterward,  his  personality 
was  wholly  denied  by  the  Arians,  and  he  was  considered  as  the  exerted 
energy  of  God.  This  appears  to  have  been  the  notion  of  Socinus,  and, 
with  occasional  modifications,  has  been  adopted  by  his  followers.  They 
sometimes  regard  him  as  an  attribute,  and  at  others  resolve  the  pas- 
sages in  which  he  is  spoken  of  into  a  periphrasis,  or  circumlocution 
for  God  himself ;  or,  to  express  both  in  one,  into  a  figure  of  speech. 

In  establishing  the  proper  personality  and  Deity  of  the  Holy  Ghost, 
the  first  argument  is  drawn  from  the  frequent  association,  in  Scripture, 
of  a  person,  under  that  appellation,  with  two  other  persons,  one  of  whom, 
"  the  Father"  is  by  all  acknowledged  to  be  Divine ;  and  the  ascription  to 
each  of  them,  or  to  the  three  in  union,  of  the  same  acts,  titles,  and  autho- 
rity, with  worship  of  the  same  kind,  and,  for  any  distinction  that  is  made, 
in  an  equal  degree.  This  argument  has  already  been  applied  to  establish 
the  Divinity  of  the  Son,  whose  personality  is  not  questioned;  and  the  terms 
of  the  proposition  may  be  as  satisfactorily  established  as  to  the  Holy  Spi- 
rit, and  will  prove  at  the  same  time  both  his  personality  and  his  Divinity. 

With  respect  to  the  Son,  we  have  seen  that,  as  so  great  and  funda- 
mental a  doctrine  as  his  Deity  might  naturally  be  expected  to  be  an. 
nounced  in  the  Old  Testament  revelation,  though  its  full  manifestation 
should  be  reserved  to  the  New ;  so  it  was,  in  fact,  not  faintly  shadowed 
forth,  but  displayed  with  so  much  clearness  as  to  become  an  article  of 
faith  in  the  Jewish  Church.     The  manifestation  of  the  existence  and 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  631 

Divinity  of  the  Holy  Spirit  may  also  be  expected  in  the  law  and  the 
prophets,  and  is,  in  fact,  to  be  traced  there  with  equal  certainty.  The 
Spirit  is  represented  as  an  agent  in  creation,  "  moving  upon  the  face 
of  the  waters  ;"  and  it  forms  no  objection  to  the  argument,  that  creation 
is  ascribed  to  the  Father,  and  also  to  the  Son,  but  a  great  confirmation 
of  it.  That  creation  should  be  effected  by  all  the  three  persons  of  the 
Godhead,  though  acting  in  different  respects,  yet  so  that  each  should  be 
a  Creator,  and,  therefore,  both  a  person  and  a  Divine  person  can  be 
explained  only  by  their  unity  in  one  essence.  On  every  other  hypothe- 
sis this  Scriptural  fact  is  disallowed,  and  therefore  no  other  hypothesis 
can  be  true.  If  the  Spirit  of  God  be  a  mere  influence,  then  he  is  not  a 
Creator,  distinct  from  the  Father  and  the  Son,  because  he  is  not  a  per- 
son ;  but  this  is  refuted  both  by  the  passage  just  quoted  and  by  Psalm 
xxxiii,  6,  "  By  the  Word  of  the  Lord  were  the  heavens  made ;  and 
all  the  host  of  them  by  the  breath  (Heb.  Spirit)  of  his  mouth."  This 
is  farther  confirmed  by  Job  xxxiii,  4,  "The  Spirit  of  God  hath  made 
me,  and  the  breath  of  the  Almighty  hath  given  me  life;"  where  the 
second  clause  is  obviously  exegetic  of  the  former,  and  the  whole  text 
proves  that,  in  the  patriarchal  age,  the  followers  of  the  true  religion 
ascribed  creation  to  the  Spirit,  as  well  as  to  the  Father ;  and  that  one 
of  his  appellations  was  "  the  Breath  of  the  Almighty."  Did  such  pas- 
sages stand  alone,  there  might  indeed  be  some  plausibility  in  the  criticism 
which  solves  them  by  a  personification ;  but,  connected  as  they  are  with 
that  whole  body  of  evidence,  which  has  been  and  shall  be  adduced,  as 
to  the  concurring  doctrine  of  both  Testaments,  they  are  inexpugnable. 
Again  :  if  the  personality  of  the  Son  and  the  Spirit  be  allowed,  and  yet 
it  is  contended  that  they  were  but  instruments  in  creation,  through  whom 
the  creative  power  of  another  operated,  but  which  creative  power  was 
not  possessed  by  them  ;  on  this  hypothesis,  too,  neither  the  Spirit  nor  the 
Son  can  be  said  to  create,  any  more  than  Moses  created  the  serpent  into 
which  his  rod  was  turned,  and  the  Scriptures  are  again  contradicted. 
To  this  association  of  the  three  persons  in  creative  acts  may  be  added 
a  like  association  in  acts  of  preservation,  which  has  been  well  called 
a  continued  creation,  and  by  that  term  is  expressed  in  the  following  pas- 
sage :  Psalm  civ,  27-30,  "  These  wait  all  upon  thee,  that  thou  mayest 
give  them  their  meat  in  due  season.  Thou  hidest  thy  face,  they  are 
troubled  ;  thou  takest  away  their  breath,  they  die,  and  return  to  dust : 
thou  sendest  forth  thy  Spirit,  they  are  created,  and  thou  renewest 
the  face  of  the  earth."  It  is  not  surely  here  meant  that  the  Spirit,  by 
which  the  generations  of  animals  are  perpetuated,  is  wind ;  and  if  he  be 
called  an  attribute,  wisdom,  power,  or  both  united,  where  do  we  read  of 
such  attributes  being  "  sent,"  "  sent  forth  from  God  ?"  The  personality 
of  the  Spirit  is  here  as  clearly  marked  as  when  St.  Paul  speaks  of  God 
w  sending  forth  the  Spirit  of  his  Son,"  and  when  our  Lord  promises  to 


G32  THEOLOGICAL   INSTITUTES.  [PART 

u  send"  the  Comforter ;  and  as  the  upholding  and  preserving  of  created 
things  is  ascribed  to  the  Father  and  the  Son,  so  here  they  are  ascribed, 
also,  to  the  Spirit, "  sent  forth  from"  God  to  "  create  and  renew  the  face 
of  the  earth." 

The  next  association  of  the  three  persons  we  find  in  the  inspiration 
of  the  prophets.  "  God  spake  unto  our  fathers  by  the  prophets,"  says 
St.  Paul,  Heb.  i,  1.  St.  Peter  declares,  that  these  "holy  men  of  God 
spake  as  they  were  moved  by  the  Holy  Ghost,"  2  Pet.  i,  21 ;  and  also 
that  it  was  "the  Spirit  of  Christ  which  was  in  them,"  1  Pet.  i,  11. 
We  may  defy  any  Socinian  to  interpret  these  three  passages  by  making 
the  Spirit  an  influence  or  attribute,  and  thereby  reducing  the  term  Holy 
Ghost  into  a  figure  of  speech.  "  God,"  in  the  first  passage,  is,  unques- 
tionably, God  the  Father,  and  the  "  holy  men  of  God,"  the  prophets, 
would  then,  according  to  this  view,  be  moved  by  the  influence  of  the 
Father ;  but  the  influence,  according  to  the  third  passage,  which  was 
the  source  of  their  inspiration,  was  the  Spirit,  or  the  influence  of 
"  Christ."  Thus  the  passages  contradict  each  other.  Allow  the  trinity 
in  unity,  and  you  have  no  difficulty  in  calling  the  Spirit,  the  Spirit  of 
the  Father,  and  the  Spirit  of  the  Son,  or  the  Spirit  of  either ;  but  if  the 
Spirit  be  an  influence,  that  influence  cannot  be  the  influence  of  two  per- 
sons,  one  God,  and  the  other  a  creature.  Even  if  they  allowed  the  pre- 
existence  of  Christ,  with  Arians,  the  passages  are  inexplicable  by 
Socinians  ;  but,  denying  his  pre-existence,  they  have  no  subterfuge  but 
to  interpret  "  the  Spirit  uf  Christ,"  the  Spirit  which  prophesied  of 
Christ,  (New  Version  in  loc.)  which  is  a  purely  gratuitous  paraphrase ; 
or  "  the  spirit  of  an  anointed  one,  or  prophet ;"  that  is,  the  prophet's  own 
spirit,  which  is  just  as  gratuitous,  and  as  unsupported  by  any  parallel, 
as  the  former.  If,  however,  the  Holy  Spirit  be  the  Spirit  of  the  Father 
and  of  the  Son,  united  in  one  essence,  the  passages  are  easily  harmon- 
ized. In  conjunction  with  the  Father  and  the  Son,  he  is  the  source  of 
that  prophetic  inspiration  under  which  the  prophets  spoke  and  acted. 
So  the  same  Spirit  which  raised  Christ  from  the  dead  is  said  by  St. 
Peter  to  have  preached  by  Noah,  while  the  ark  was  preparing,  an  allu- 
sion to  the  passage,  "  My  Spirit  shall  not  always  strive  (contend,  debate) 
with  man."  This,  we  may  observe,  affords  an  eminent  proof,  that  the 
writers  of  the  New  Testament  understood  the  phrase  "  the  Spirit  of  God," 
as  it  occurs  in  the  Old  Testament,  personally.  For,  whatever  may  be 
the  full  meaning  of  that  difficult  passage  in  St.  Peter,  Christ  is  clearly 
declared  to  have  preached  by  the  Spirit  in  the  days  of  Noah  ;  that  is, 
he,  by  the  Spirit,  inspired  Noah  to  preach.  If,  then,  the  apostles  un- 
derstood that  the  Holy  Ghost  was  a  person,  a  point  which  will  presently 
be  established,  we  have,  in  the  text  just  quoted  from  the  book  of  Genesis, 
a  key  to  the  meaning  of  those  texts  in  the  Old  Testament,  where  the 
phrases  "My  Spirit,"  "  the  Spirit  of  God,"  and  « the  Spirit  of  the  Lord," 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES.  633 

occur ;  and  inspired  authority  is  thus  afforded  us  to  interpret  them  as  of 
a  person ;  and  if  of  a  person,  the  very  effort  made  by  Socinians  to  deny 
his  personality,  itself  indicates  that  that  person  must,  from  the  lofty  titles 
and  works  ascribed  to  him,  be  inevitably  Divine.  Such  phrases  occui 
in  many  passages  of  the  Hebrew  Scriptures ;  but  in  the  following  the 
Spirit  is  also  eminently  distinguished  from  two  other  persons.  "  And 
now  the  Lord  God  and  his  Spirit  hath  sent  me."  Isa.  xlviii,  16 ;  or, 
rendered  better, "  hath  sent  me  and  his  Spirit,"  both  terms  being  in  the 
accusative  case.  "  Seek  ye  out  of  the  book  of  the  Lord,  and  read  : — 
for  my  mouth  it  hath  commanded,  and  his  spirit  it  hath  gathered 
them,"  Isa.  xxxiv,  16.  "I  am  with  you,  saith  the  Lord  of  hosts  : 
according  to  the  word  that  I  covenanted  with  you  when  ye  came  out 
of  Egypt,  so  my  Spirit  remaineth  among  you  :  fear  ye  not.  For  thus 
saith  the  Lord  of  hosts, — I  will  shake  all  nations,  and  the  Desire  of 
all  nations  shall  come,"  Haggai  ii,  4—7.  Here,  also,  the  Spirit  of 
the  Lord  is  seen  collocated  with  the  Lord  of  hosts  and  the  Desire  of 
all  nations,  who  is  the  Messiah.  For  other  instances  of  the  indica- 
tion of  a  trinity  of  Divine  persons  in  the  Old  Testament,  see  chap.  9. 

Three  persons,  and  three  only,  are  associated  also,  both  in  the  Old 
and  New  Testament,  as  objects  of  supreme  worship  ;  as  the  one  name 
in  which  the  religious  act  of  solemn  benediction  is  performed,  and  to 
which  men  are  bound  by  solemn  religious  covenant. 

In  the  plural  form  of  the  name  of  God,  which  has  already  been  con- 
sidered,  {chapter  9,)  each  received  equal  adoration.  That  threefold 
personality  seems  to  have  given  rise  to  the  standing  form  of  triple  bene- 
diction used  by  the  Jewish  high  priest,  also  before  mentioned,  {chapter 
9.)  The  very  important  fact,  that,  in  the  vision  of  Isaiah,  chapter  vi, 
the  Lord  of  hosts,  who  spake  unto  the  prophet,  is  in  Acts  xxviii,  25, 
said  to  be  the  Holy  Ghost  who  spake  to  the  prophet,  while  St.  John 
declares  that  the  glory  which  Isaiah  saw  was  the  glory  of  Christ, 
proves,  indisputably,  {chapter  9,)  that  each  of  the  three  persons  bears 
this  august  appellation  ;  it  gives  also  the  reason  for  the  threefold  repeti- 
tion "  Holy,  holy,  holy,"  and  it  exhibits  the  prophet  and  the  very  se- 
raphs in  deep  and  awful  adoration  before  the  triune  Lord  of  hosts.  Both 
the  prophet  and  the  seraphim  were,  therefore,  worshippers  of  the  Holy 
Ghost  and  of  the  Son,  at  the  very  time  and  by  the  very  acts  in  which 
they  worshipped  the  Father,  which  proves  that,  as  the  three  persons 
received  equal  homage  in  a  case  which  does  not  admit  of  the  evasion 
of  pretended  superior  and  inferior  worship,  they  are  equal  in  majesty, 
glory,  and  essence. 

As  in  the  tabernacle  form  of  benediction,  the  triune  Jehovah  is  recog- 
nized as  the  source  of  all  grace  and  peace  to  his  creatures  ;  so  in  apos- 
tolic formula  of  blessing,  "  The  grace  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and  the 
love  of  God,  and  the  communion  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  be  with  you  all. 


634  THEOLOGICAL   INSTITUTES.  [PART 

Amen."  Here  t\\e  personality  of  the  three  is  kept  distinct,  and  the 
prayer  to  the  three  is,  that  Christians  may  have  a  common  participation 
of  the  Holy  Spirit,  that  is,  doubtless,  as  he  was  promised  by  our  Lord 
to  his  disciples,  as  a  Comforter,  as  the  source  of  light  and  spiritual  life, 
as  the  author  of  regeneration.  Thus  the  Spirit  is  acknowledged,  equally 
with  the  Father  and  the  Son,  to  be  the  source  and  the  giver  of  the  high- 
est  spiritual  blessings,  while  the  solemn  ministerial  benediction  is,  from 
its  specific  character,  to  be  regarded  as  an  act  of  prayer  to  each  of  the 
three  persons,  and  therefore  is,  at  once,  an  acknowledgment  of  the  Di- 
vinity and  personality  of  each.  The  same  remark  applies  to  Rev.  i,  4, 
5,  "  Grace  be  unto  you  and  peace  from  Him  which  was,  and  which  is, 
and  which  is  to  come  ;  and  from  the  seven  spirits  which  are  before  his 
throne,"  (an  emblematical  representation,  in  reference,  probably,  to  the 
golden  branch  with  its  seven  lamps,)  "  and  from  Jesus  Christ."  The 
style  of  the  book  sufficiently  accounts  for  the  Holy  Spirit  being  called 
"  the  seven  spirits  ;"  but  no  created  spirit  or  company  of  created  spirits 
are  ever  spoken  of  under  that  appellation  ;  and  the  place  assigned  to  the 
seven  spirits  between  the  mention  of  the  Father  and  the  Son,  indicates, 
with  certainty,  that  one  of  the  sacred  three,  so  eminent,  and  so  exclu- 
sively  eminent  in  both  dispensations,  is  intended. 

The  form  of  baptism  next  presents  itself  with  demonstrative  evidence 
on  the  two  points  before  us,  the  personality  and  Divinity  of  the  Holy 
Spirit.  It  is  the  form  of  covenant  by  which  the  sacred  three  become 
our  one  or  only  God,  and  we  become  his  people.  "  Go  ye,  therefore, 
and  teach  all  nations,  baptizing  them  in  the  name  of  the  father,  and 
of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost."  In  what  manner  is  this  text  to 
be  disposed  of,  if  the  personality  of  the  Holy  Ghost  is  denied  ?  Is  the 
form  of  baptism  to  be  so  understood  as  to  imply  that  it  is  baptism  in  the 
name  of  one  God,  one  creature,  and  one  attribute  ?  The  grossness  of  this 
absurdity  refutes  it,  and  proves  that  here,  at  least,  there  can  be  no  per- 
sonification. If  all  the  three,  therefore,  are  persons,  are  we  to  make 
Christian  baptism  a  baptism  in  the  name  of  one  God  and  two  creatures  ? 
This  would  be  too  near  an  approach  to  idolatry,  or  rather,  it  would  be 
idolatry  itself;  for,  considering  baptism  as  an  act  of  dedication  to  God, 
the  acceptance  of  God  as  our  God,  on  our  part,  and  the  renunciation  of 
all  other  deities,  and  all  other  religions,  what  could  a  heathen  convert 
conceive  of  the  two  creatures  so  distinguished  from  all  other  creatures 
in  heaven  and  in  earth,  and  so  associated  with  God  himself  as  to  form 
together  the  one  name,  to  which,  by  that  act,  he  was  devoted,  and  which 
he  was  henceforward  to  profess  and  honour,  but  that  they  were  equally 
Divine,  unless  special  care  were  taken  to  instruct  him  that  but  one  of  the 
three  was  God,  and  the  two  others  but  creatures  1  But  of  this  care,  of 
this  cautionary  instruction,  though  so  obviously  necessary  upon  this  the- 
ory, no  single  instance  can  be  given  in  all  the  writings  of  the  apostles. 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES,  635 

Baptism  was  not  a  new  rite.  It  was  used  as  a  religious  act  among 
heathens,  and  especially  before  initiation  into  their  mysteries.  Prose- 
lytes  to  the  law  of  Moses  were,  probably,  received  by  baptism ;  whe- 
ther in,  or  into,  the  name  of  the  God  of  Israel  does  not  appear ;  (6)  but 
necessarily  on  professing  their  faith  in  him  as  the  true  and  only  God. 
John,  the  forerunner  of  our  Lord,  baptized,  but  it  does  not  appear  that 
he  baptized  in  the  name  or  into  the  name  of  any  one.  This  baptism  was 
to  all  but  our  Lord,  who  needed  it  not,  a  baptism  "  unto  repentance," 
that  is,  on  profession  of  repentance,  to  be  followed  by  "  fruits  meet  for 
repentance,"  and  into  the  expectation  of  the  speedy  approach  of  Mes- 
siah. But  Christian  baptism  was  directed  to  be  in  the  name  of  three 
persons,  which  peculiarly  implies,  first,  the  form  of  words  to  be  used  by 
the  administration ;  second,  the  authority  conveyed  to  receive  such  per- 
sons as  had  been  made  disciples  into  the  Church,  and,  consequently, 
into  covenant  with  God ;  third,  the  faith  required  of  the  person  bap- 
tized, faith  in  the  existence  of  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost,  and  in  their 
character  according  to  the  revelation  made  of  each,  first,  by  inspired 
teachers,  and  in  after  times  by  their  writings  ;  and,  fourth,  consecration 
to  the  service  of  the  three  persons,  having  one  name,  which  could  be  no 
other  than  that  of  the  one  God.  What  stronger  proof  of  the  Divinity 
of  each  can  be  given  than  in  this  single  passage  ?  The  form  exhibits 
three  persons,  without  any  note  of  superiority  or  inferiority,  except  that 
of  the  mere  order  in  which  they  are  placed.  It  conveys  authority  in 
the  united  name,  and  the  authority  is,  therefore,  equal.  It  supposes 
faith,  that  is,  not  merely  belief,  but,  as  the  object  of  religious  profession 
and  adherence,  trust  in  each,  or  collectively  in  the  one  name  which 
unites  the  three  in  one ;  yet  that  which  is  Divine  only  can  be  properly 
the  object  of  religious  truth.  It  implies  devotion  to  the  service  of  each, 
the  yielding  of  obedience,  the  consecration  of  every  power  of  mind  and 
body  to  each,  and  therefore  each  must  have  an  equal  right  to  this  sur- 
render and  to  the  authority  which  it  implies. 

It  has  been  objected,  that  baptism  is,  in  the  book  of  Acts,  frequently 
mentioned  as  baptism  "  in  the  name  of  the  Lord  Jesus"  simply,  and  from 
hence  the  Socinians  would  infer  that  the  formula  in  the  Gospel  of  St. 
Matthew  was  not  in  use.  If  this  were  so,  it  would  only  conclude  against 
the  use  of  the  words  of  our  Lord  as  the  standing  form  of  baptism,  but 
would  prove  nothing  against  the  signifcancy  of  baptism  in  whatever 
form  it  might  be  administered.  For  as  this  passage  in  St.  Matthew  was 
the  original  commission  under  which,  alone,  the  apostles  had  authority 

(6)  The  baptism  of  Jewish  proselytes  is  a  disputed  point.  It  was  strenuously 
maintained  by  Dr.  Lightfoot,  and  opposed  by  Dr.  Benson.  Wall  has,  however, 
made  the  practice  highly  probable,  and  it  is  spoken  of  in  the  Gospels  as  a  rite 
with  which  the  Jews  were  familiar.  Certainly  it  was  a  practice  among  the  Jews 
near  the  Christian  era. 


636  THEOLOGICAL   INSTITUTES.  [PART 

to  baptize  at  all,  the  import  of  the  rite  is  marked  out  in  it,  and,  whatever 
words  they  used  in  baptism,  they  were  found  to  explain  the  import  of 
the  rite,  as  laid  down  by  their  Master,  to  all  disciples  so  received.  But, 
from  the  passages  adduced  from  the  Acts,  the  inference  that  the  form 
of  baptism  given  in  Matthew  was  not  rigorously  followed  by  the  apos- 
tles does  not  follow,  "  because  the  earliest  Christian  writers  inform  us, 
that  this  solemn  form  of  expression  was  uniformly  employed  from  the 
beginning  of  the  Christian  Church.  It  is  true,  indeed,  that  the  Apostle 
Peter  said  to  those  who  were  converted  on  the  day  of  pentecost,  Acts  ii, 
38,  '  Repent,  and  be  baptized  every  one  of  you  in  the  name  of  Jesus 
Christ ;'  and  that,  in  different  places  of  the  book  of  Acts  it  is  said,  that 
persons  were  baptized  in  the  name  of  the  Lord  Jesus  ;  but  there  is  inter- 
nal evidence  from  the  New  Testament  itself,  that  when  the  historian 
says,  that  persons  were  baptized  in  the  name  of  the  Lord  Jesus,  he 
means  they  were  baptized  according  to  the  form  prescribed  by  Jesus. 
Thus  the  question  put,  Acts  xix,  3,  •  Unto  what  then  were  ye  baptized  V 
shows  that  he  did  not  suppose  it  possible  for  any  person  who  adminis- 
tered Christian  baptism  to  omit  the  mention  of 'the  Holy  Ghost ;'  and 
even  after  the  question,  the  historian,  when  he  informs  us  that  the  disci- 
ples were  baptized,  is  not  solicitous  to  repeat  the  whole  form,  but  says 
in  his  usual  manner,  Acts  xix,  5,  «  when  they  heard  this,  they  were  bap- 
tized, in  the  name  of  the  Lord  Jesus.'  There  is  another  question  put 
by  the  Apostle  Paul,  which  shows  us  in  what  light  he  viewed  the  form 
of  baptism  :  1  Cor.  i,  13,  '  Were  ye  baptized  in  the  name  of  Paul  V 
Here  the  question  implies  that  he  considered  the  form  of  baptism  as  so 
sacred,  that  the  introducing  the  name  of  a  teacher  into  it  was  the  same 
thing  as  introducing  a  new  master  into  the  kingdom  of  Christ." 

Ecclesiastical  antiquity  comes  in,  also,  to  establish  the  exact  use  of 
this  form  in  baptism,  as  the  practice  from  the  days  of  the  apostles.  The 
most  ancient  method  was  for  the  persons  to  be  baptized  to  say,  •  I  be- 
lieve in  God  the  Father,  the  Son,  and  the  Holy  Ghost."  This  was  his 
profession  of  faith,  and  with  respect  to  the  administration,  Justin  Martyr, 
who  was  born  soon  after  the  death  of  the  Apostle  John,  says,  in  his  first 
Apology,  "  Whosoever  can  be  persuaded  and  believe  that  those  things 
which  are  taught  and  asserted  by  us  are  true — are  brought  by  us  to  a 
place  where  there  is  water,  and  regenerated  according  to  the  rite  of  re- 
generation, by  which  we  ourselves  have  been  born  again.  For  then 
they  are  washed  in  the  water,  in  the  name  of  God  the  Father  and  Lord 
of  all,  and  of  our  Saviour  Jesus  Christ,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost."  This 
passage,  I  may  observe  by  the  way,  shows  that,  in  the  primitive  Church, 
men  were  not  baptized  in  order  to  their  being  taught,  but  taught  in  order 
to  their  being  baptized,  and  that,  consequently,  baptism  was  not  a  mere 
expression  of  willingness  to  be  instructed,  but  a  profession  of  faith,  and 
a  consecration  to  the  trinity,  after  the  course  of  instruction  was  com- 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  C37 

pleted.  Tertullian  also  says,  "  the  law  of  baptism  is  enjoined  and  the 
form  prescribed,  Go  teach  the  nations,  baptizing  them  into  the  name  of 
the  Father,  and  the  Son,  and  the  Holy  Spirit."  (Be  Baptismo.) 

The  testimonies  to  this  effect  are  abundant,  (7)  and,  together  with 
the  form  given  by  our  Lord,  they  prove  that  every  Christian  in  the 
first  ages  did,  upon  his  very  entrance  into  the  Church  of  Christ,  pro- 
fess  his  faith  in  the  Divinity  and  personality  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  a;i 
well  as  of  the  Father  and  the  Son. 

But  other  arguments  are  not  wanting  to  prove  both  the  personality 
and  the  Divinity  of  the  Holy  Spirit.     With  respect  to  the  former, 

1.  The  mode  of  his  subsistence  in  the  sacred  trinity  proves  his  per- 
sonality.  He  proceeds  from  the  Father  and  the  Son,  and  cannot, 
therefore,  be  either.  To  say  that  an  attribute  proceeds  and  comes 
forth  would  be  a  gross  absurdity. 

2.  From  so  many  Scriptures  being  wholly  unintelligible  and  even 
absurd,  unless  the  Holy  Ghost  is  allowed  to  be  a  person.  For  as  those 
who  take  the  phrase  as  ascribing  no  more  than  a  figurative  personality 
to  an  attribute,  make  that  attribute  to  be  the  energy  or  power  of  God, 
they  reduce  such  passages  as  the  following  to  utter  unmeaningness  : 
U  God  anointed  Jesus  with  the  Holy  Ghost  and  with  power,"  that  is,  with 
the  power  of  God  and  with  power.  "  That  ye  may  abound  in  hope 
through  the  power  of  the  Holy  Ghost,"  that  is,  through  the  power  of 
power.  "  In  demonstration  of  the  Spirit  and  of  power,"  that  is,  in  de- 
monstration of  power  and  of  power.  And  if  it  should  be  pleaded  that 
the  last  passage  is  a  Hebraism  for  "  powerful  demonstration  of  the 
Spirit,"  it  makes  the  interpretation  still  more  obviously  absurd,  for  it 
would  then  be  "  the  powerful  demonstration  of  power."  "  It  seemed 
good  to  the  Holy  Ghost,"  to  the  power  of  God,  "  and  to  us."  "  The 
Spirit  and  the  bride  say,  Come," — the  power  of  God  and  the  bride  say, 
Come.  Modern  Unitarians,  from  Dr.  Priestley  to  Mr.  Belsham,  ven- 
ture to  find  fault  with  the  style  of  the  apostles  in  some  instances  ;  and 
those  penmen  of  the  Holy  Spirit  have,  indeed,  a  very  unfortunate  me- 
thod of  expressing  themselves  for  those  who  would  make  them  the 
patrons  of  Socinianism ;  but  they  would  more  justly  deserve  the  cen- 
sures of  these  judges  of  the  "  words  which  the  Holy  Ghost"  taught,  had 
they  been  really  such  writers  as  the  Socinian  scheme  would  make  them, 
and  of  which  the  above  are  instances. 

3.  Personification  of  any  kind  is,  in  some  passages  in  which  the  Holy 
Ghost  is  spoken  of,  impossible.  The  reality  which  this  figure  of  speech 
is  said  to  present  to  us  is  either  some  of  the  attributes  of  God,  or  else 
the  doctrine  of  the  Gospel.  Let  this  theory,  then,  be  tried  upon  the 
following  passages  : — "  He  shall  not  speak  of  himself,  but  whatsoever 

(7)  Seo  Wall's  History  of  Infant  Baptism  and  Bingham's  Antiquities 


638  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

he  shall  hear,  that  shall  he  speak."  What  attribute  of  God  can  here 
be  personified  1  And  if  the  doctrine  of  the  Gospel  be  arrayed  with 
personal  attributes,  where  is  there  an  instance  of  so  monstrous  a  proso- 
popaeia  as  this  passage  would  present  ? — the  doctrine  of  the  Gospel  not 
speaking  "  of  himself"  but  speaking  "  whatsoever  he  shall  hear  !" — 
"  The  Spirit  maketh  intercession  for  us."  What  attribute  is  capable  of 
interceding,  or  how  can  the  doctrine  of  the  Gospel  intercede  1  Personi- 
fication, too,  is  the  language  of  poetry,  and  takes  place  naturally  only 
in  excited  and  elevated  discourse ;  but  if  the  Holy  Spirit  be  a  personi- 
fication, we  find  it  in  the  ordinary  and  cool  strain  of  mere  narration  and 
argumentative  discourse  in  the  New  Testament,  and  in  the  most  inci- 
dental conversations.  "  Have  ye  received  the  Holy  Ghost  since  ye 
believed  1  We  have  not  so  much  as  heard  whether  there  be  any  Holy 
Ghost."  How  impossible  is  it  here  to  extort, by  any  process  whatever, 
even  the  shadow  of  a  personification  of  either  any  attribute  of  God,  or 
of  the  doctrine  of  the  Gospel.  So  again, "  The  Spirit  said  unto  Philip, 
Go  near,  and  join  thyself  to  this  chariot."  Could  it  be  any  attribute  of 
God  which  said  this,  or  could  it  be  the  doctrine  of  the  Gospel  ? 

It  is  in  vain,  then,  to  speak  of  the  personification  of  wisdom  in  the 
book  of  Proverbs,  and  of  charity  in  the  writings  of  St.  Paul ;  and  if 
even  instances  of  the  personification  of  Divine  attributes  and  of  the 
doctrine  of  the  Gospel  could  be  found  under  this  very  term,  the  Holy 
Spirit,  yet  the  above  texts  and  numerous  other  passages  being  utterly 
incapable  of  being  so  resolved,  would  still  teach  the  doctrine  of  a  per- 
sonal Holy  Ghost.  The  passage  on  which  such  interpreters  chiefly 
rely  as  an  instance  of  the  personification  of  the  doctrine  of  the  Gospel 
is  2  Cor.  iii,  6,  "  Who  also  hath  made  us  able  ministers  of  the  New 
Testament,  not  of  the  letter,  but  of  the  Spirit ;  for  the  letter  killeth,  but 
the  Spirit  giveth  life."     To  this  Witsius  well  replies  : — 

"  Were  we  to  grant  that  the  Spirit,  by  a  metonymy,  denotes  the  doc- 
trine of  the  Gospel ;  what  is  improperly  ascribed  there  to  the  Gospel  as 
an  exemplary  cause,  is  properly  to  be  attributed  to  the  person  of  the 
Holy  Spirit,  as  the  principal  efficient  cause.  Thus  also  that  which  is 
elsewhere  ascribed  to  the  letter  of  the  law  is,  by  the  same  analogy,  to 
be  attributed  to  the  person  of  the  lawgiver.  But  it  does  not  seem  ne- 
cessary for  us  to  make  such  a  concession.  The  apostle  does  not  call 
the  law  '  the  letter ;'  or  the  Gospel  « the  Spirit ;'  but  teaches  that  the 
letter  is  in  the  law,  and  the  Spirit  in  the  Gospel,  so  that  they  who  minis- 
ter to  the  law,  minister  to  the  letter  ;  they  who  minister  to  the  Gospel, 
to  the  Spirit.  He  calls  that  the  letter,  which  is  unable  at  first,  and  by 
itself,  to  convert  a  man  ;  or  to  give  a  sinner  the  hope  of  life,  much  less 
to  quicken  him.  By  the  Spirit,  he  understands  both  the  person  of  tho 
Spirit,  and  his  quickening  grace ;  which  is  clearly  disclosed,  and  ren- 
dered efficacious,  by  means  of  the  Gospel.     In  a  preceding  verse,  the 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL   INSTITUTES.  639 

apostle  undoubtedly  distinguishes  the  Spirit  from  the  doctrine,  when  he 
calls  the  Corinthians  <  the  epistle  of  Christ,  written  not  with  ink,  but 
with  the  Spirit  of  the  living  God.'  "  (Exposition  of  Creed.) 

Finally,  that  the  Holy  Ghost  is  a  person,  and  not  an  attribute,  is 
proved  by  the  use  of  masculine  pronouns  and  relatives  in  the  Greek  of 
the  New  Testament,  in  connection  with  the  neuter  noun  irvev/^a,  Spirit ; 
and  by  so  many  distinct  personal  acts  being  ascribed  to  him,  as,  to  come, 
to  go,  to  be  sent,  to  teach,  to  guide,  to  comfort,  to  make  intercession,  to 
bear  witness,  to  give  gifts,  "  dividing  them  to  every  man  as  he  will," 
to  be  vexed,  grieved,  and  quenched.  These  cannot  be  applied  to  the 
mere  fiction  of  a  person,  and  they,  therefore,  establish  the  Spirit's  true 
personality. 

Some  additional  arguments,  to  those  before  given  to  establish  the 
Divinity  of  the  Holy  Ghost  may  also  be  adduced. 

The  first  is  taken  from  his  being  the  subject  of  blasphemy — "  the 
blasphemy  against  the  Holy  Ghost  shall  not  be  forgiven  unto  men," 
Matt,  xii,  31.  This  blasphemy  consisted  in  ascribing  his  miraculous 
works  to  Satan  ;  and  that  he  is  capable  of  being  blasphemed  proves 
him  to  be  as  much  a. person  as  the  Son  ;_and  it  proves  him  to  be  Divine, 
because  it  shows  that  he  may  be  sinned  against,  and  so  sinned  against, 
that  the  blasphemer  shall  not  be  forgiven.  A  person  he  must  be,  or  he 
could  not  be  blasphemed  ;  a  Divine  person  he  must  be  to  constitute 
this  blasphemy  a  sin  against  him  in  the  proper  sense,  and  of  so  ma- 
lignant a  kind  as  to  place  it  beyond  the  reach  of  mercy. 

He  is  called  God.  "  Why  hath  Satan  filled  thine  heart  to  lie  unto 
the  Holy  Ghost  ?  Why  hast  thou  conceived  this  in  thine  heart  ?  Thou 
hast  not  lied  unto  men  ;  but  unto  God."  Ananias  is  said  to  have  lied, 
particularly  "  unto  the  Holy  Ghost,"  because  the  apostles  were  under 
his  special  direction,  in  establishing  the  temporary  regulation  among 
Christians  that  they  should  have  all  things  in  common ;  the  detection 
of  the  crime  itself  was  a  demonstration  of  the  Divinity  of  the  Spirit, 
because  it  showed  his  omniscience,  his  knowledge  of  the  most  secret 
acts.  In  addition  to  the  proof  of  his  Divinity  thus  afforded  by  this 
history,  he  is  also  called  God, "  Thou  hast  not  lied  unto  men  ;  but  unto 
God."  He  is  also  called  the  Lord,  "Now  the  Lord  is  that  Spirit," 
2  Cor.  iii,  17.  He  is  eternal,  "the  eternal  Spirit,"  Heb.  ix,  14. 
Omnipresence  is  ascribed  to  him,  "  Your  body  is  the  temple  of  the 
Holy  Ghost ;"  "  As  many  as  are  led  by  the  Spirit  of  God,  they  are  the 
sons  of  God."  Now,  as  all  true  Christians  are  his  temples,  and  are  led 
by  him,  he  must  be  present  to  them  at  all  times  and  in  all  places.  He  is 
said  to  be  Omniscient,  "  The  Spirit  searcheth  all  things,  even  the  deep 
things  of  God."  Here  the  Spirit  is  said  to  search  or  know  "  all  things" 
absolutely  ;  and  then,  to  make  this  more  emphatic,  that  he  knows  "  the 
deep  things  of  God,"  things  hidden  from  every  creature,  the  depths  of 


040  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

his  essence,  and  the  secrets  of  his  counsels ;  for,  that  this  is  intended, 
appears  from  the  next  verse,  where  he  is  said  to  know  "  the  things  of 
God,"  as  the  spirit  of  a  man  knows  the  things  of  a  man.  Supreme 
Majesty  is  also  attributed  to  him,  so  that  "  to  lie  to  him,"  to  "  bias- 
pheme"  him,  "  to  vex"  him,  to  do  him  "  despite,"  are  sins,  and  render 
the  offender  liable  to  Divine  punishment. 

He  is  the  source  of  inspiration.  "  Holy  men  of  God  spake  as  they 
were  moved  by  the  Holy  Ghost."  "  He  shall  lead  you  into  all  truth." 
He  is  the  source  and  fountain  of  life.  "  It  is  the  Spirit  that  quick  - 
eneth."  "  He  that  raised  up  Christ  from  the  dead  shall  quicken  your 
mortal  bodies,  by  his  Spirit  that  dwelleth  in  you."  As  we  have  seen 
him  acting  in  the  material  creation,  so  he  is  the  author  of  the  new 
creation,  which  is  as  evidently  a  work  of  Divine  power  as  the  former  : 
"  Born  of  the  Spirit ;"  "  The  renewing  of  the  Holy  Ghost."  He  is  the 
author  of  religious  comfort — "  The  Comforter."  The  moral  attributes 
of  God  are  also  given  to  him.  Holiness,  which  includes  all  in  one  : — 
the  Holy  Ghost  is  his  eminent  designation.  Goodness  and  grace  are 
his  attributes.  "  Thy  Spirit  is  good."  "The  Spirit  of  grace."  Truth 
also,  for  he  is  "  the  Spirit  of  truth." 

How  impracticable  it  is  to  interpret  the  phrase,  "  The  Holy  Ghost," 
as  a  periphrasis  for  God  himself,  has  been  proved  in  considering  some 
of  the  above  passages,  and  will  be  obvious  from  the  slightest  consider- 
ation of  the  texts.  A  Spirit,  which  is  the  Spirit  of  God  ;  which  is  so 
often  distinguished  from  the  Father  :  which  "sees"  and  "hears"  "the 
Father ;"  which  searches  "  the  deep  things"  of  God  ;  which  is  "  sent" 
by  the  Father  ;  which  "  proceedeth"  from  him  ;  and  who  has  special 
prayer  addressed  to  him  at  the  same  time  as  the  Father,  cannot,  though 
"  one  with  him,"  be  the  Father  ;  and  that  he  is  not  the  Son,  is  acknow- 
ledged on  both  sides. 

As  a  Divine  person,  our  regards  are,  therefore,  justly  due  to  him  as 
the  object  of  worship  and  trust,  of  prayer  and  blessing  ;  duties  to  which 
we  are  specially  called,  both  by  the  general  consideration  of  his  Divi- 
nity, and  by  that  affectingly  benevolent  and  attractive  character  under 
which  he  is  presented  to  us  in  the  whole  Scriptures.  In  creation  we 
see  him  moving  upon  the  face  of  chaos,  and  reducing  it  to  a  beautiful 
order  ;  in  providence,  "  renewing  the  face  of  the  earth,"  "  garnishing 
the  heavens,"  and  "  giving  life"  to  man.  In  grace  we  behold  him 
expanding  the  prophetic  scene  to  the  vision  of  the  seers  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, and  making  a  perfect  revelation  of  the  doctrine  of  Christ  to  the 
apostles  of  the  New.  He  "  reproves  the  world  of  sin,"  and  works 
secret  conviction  of  its  evil  and  danger  in  the  heart.  He  is  "the  Spirit 
of  grace  and  supplication  ;"  the  softened  heart,  the  yielding  will,  all 
heavenly  desires  and  tendencies  are  from  him.  He  hastens  to  the 
troubled  spirits  of  penitent  men,  who  are  led  by  his  influence  to  Christ, 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  641 

aud  in  whose  hearts  he  has  wrought  faith,  with  the  news  of  pardon,  and 
"  bears  witness"  of  their  sonship  "  with  their  spirit."  He  aids  their 
"  infirmities ;"  makes  "  intercession  for  them ;"  inspires  thoughts  of 
consolation  and  feelings  of  peace  ;  plants  and  perfects  in  them  what- 
soever  things  are  pure,  and  lovely,  and  honest,  and  of  good  report ; 
delights  in  his  own  work  in  the  renewed  heart ;  dwells  in  the  soul  as  in 
a  temple  ;  and,  after  having  rendered  the  spirit  to  God,  without  spot  or 
wrinkle,  or  any  such  thing,  sanctified  and  meet  for  heaven,  finishes  his 
benevolent  and  glorious  work  by  raising  the  bodies  of  saints  in  immor- 
tal life  at  the  last  day.  So  powerfully  does  "  the  Spirit  of  glory  and  of 
God"  claim  our  love,  our  praise,  and  our  obedience !  In  the  forms  of 
the  Churches  of  Christ,  in  all  ages,  he  has,  therefore,  been  associated 
with  the  Father  and  the  Son,  in  equal  glory  and  blessing ;  and  where 
6uch  forms  are  not  in  use,  this  distinct  recognition  of  the  Spirit,  so 
much  in  danger  of  being  neglected,  ought,  by  ministers,  to  be  most 
carefully  and  constantly  made,  in  every  gratulatory  act  of  devotion, 
that  so  equally  to  each  person  of  the  eternal  trinity  gl6ry  may  be  given 
"  in  the  Church  throughout  all  ages.     Amen." 

The  essential  and  fundamental  character  of  the  doctrine  of  the  holy 
and  undivided  trinity  has  been  already  stated,  and  the  more  fully  the 
evidences  of  the  Divinity  of  the  Son  and  the  Spirit  are  educed  from 
the  sacred  writings,  the  more  deeply  we  shall  be  impressed  with  this 
view,  and  the  more  binding  will  be  our  obligation  to  "  contend  earnestly 
for"  this  part  of  "  the  faith  which  was  once  delivered  unto  the  saints." 
Nor  can  the  plea  here  be  ever  soundly  urged,  that  this  is  a  merely  spe- 
culative doctrine ;  for,  as  it  has  been  well  observed  by  a  learned  writer, 
"  The  truth  is,  the  doctrine  of  the  trinity  is  so  far  from  being  merely  a 
matter  of  speculation,  that  it  is  the  very  essence  of  the  Christian  reli- 
gion, the  foundation  of  the  whole  revelation,  and  connected  with  every 
part  of  it.  All  that  is  peculiar  in  this  religion  has  relation  to  the  re- 
demption of  Christ,  and  the  sanctification  of  the  Spirit.  And  whoso- 
ever is  endeavouring  to  invalidate  these  articles  is  overthrowing  or 
undermining  the  authority  of  this  dispensation,  and  reducing  it  to  a 
good  moral  system  only,  or  treatise  of  ethics. 

"  If  the  Word,  or  Logos,  who  became  incarnate,  was  a  created  being 
only,  then  the  mystery  of  his  incarnation,  so  much  insisted  on  in  Scrip, 
ture,  and  the  love  expressed  to  mankind  thereby,  so  much  magnified, 
dwindle  into  an  interested  service ;  and  a  short  life  of  sufferings,  con- 
cluded, indeed,  with  a  painful  death,  is  rewarded  with  Divine  honours, 
and  a  creature  advanced  thereby  to  the  glory  of  the  Creator ;  for  the 
command  is  plain  and  express,  that '  all  the  angels  of  God'  should '  wor- 
bhip  him.'  And  have  not  many  saints  and  martyrs  undergone  the  same 
sufferings  without  the  like  glorious  recompense  ?  And  is  not  the  advan- 
tage to  Christ  himself,  by  his  incarnation  and  passion,  greater  on  thi9 
Vol   I.  41 


642  THEOLOGICAL   INSTITUTES. 

supposition,  than  to  men,  for  whose  sake  the  sacred  writers  represent 
this  scheme  of  mercy  undertaken  ? 

"  Again :  if  the  motions  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  so  frequently  spoken  of, 
are  only  figurative  expressions,  and  do  not  necessarily  imply  any  real 
person  who  is  the  author  of  them,  or  if  this  person  be  only  a  created 
being,  then  we  are  deprived  of  all  hopes  of  Divine  assistance  in  our 
spiritual  warfare ;  and  have  nothing  but  our  own  natural  abilities 
wherewith  to  contend  against  the  world,  the  flesh,  and  the  devil.  And 
is  it  not  amazing  that  this  article  could  ever  be  represented  as  a  mere 
abstracted  speculation,  when  our  deliverance  both  from  the  penalty  and 
power  of  sin  does  so  plainly  depend  upon  it  ?  In  the  sacred  writings  a 
true  faith  is  made  as  necessary  as  a  right  practice,  and  this  in  particular 
in  order  to  that  end.  For  Arianism,  Socinianism,  and  all  those  several 
heresies,  of  what  kind  or  title  soever,  which  destroy  the  Divinity  of  the 
Son  and  Holy  Ghost,  are,  indeed,  no  other  than  different  schemes  of 
infidelity ;  since  the  authority,  end,  and  influence  of  the  Gospel  are  as 
effectually  made  void  by  disowning  the  characters  in  which  our  Re- 
deemer  and  Sanctifier  are  there  represented,  as  even  by  contesting  the 
evidences  of  its  Divine  original.  These  notions  plainly  rob  those  two 
Divine  persons  of  their  operations  and  attributes,  and  of  the  honour  due 
to  them ;  lessen  the  mercy  and  mystery  of  the  scheme  of  our  salvation ; 
degrade  our  notion  of  ourselves  and  our  fellow  creatures ;  alter  the  na- 
ture of  several  duties,  and  weaken  those  great  motives  to  the  observance 
of  all  that  true  Christianity  proposes  to  us."  (Dodwell.) 


I 


14  DAY  USE 

RETURN  TO  DESK  FROM  WHICH  BORROWED 
LOAN  DEPT. 

This  book  is  due  on  the  last  date  stamped  below,  or 

on  the  date  to  which  renewed. 

Renewed  books  are  subject  to  immediate  recall. 


^Sfc 


"%# 


RECTD  LD 


JAN  U',3b3 


SAN  P1EGQ 


JHTERUBRARY  lfOAN 


T^ 


4UJ9T 


-'  -J- 


LD  21A-50m-8,'57 
(C8481sl0)476B 


General  Library 

University  of  California 

Berkeley 


¥ 


CDbl351DMH 


^)*yt* 


737881" 


*%$» 


v./ 

UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 


